Johnnie Young v.

BLD-230 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 12-2759
___________
IN RE: JOHNNIE D. YOUNG,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(Related to Civ. No. 3-09-cv-02513)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
July 19, 2012
Before: SCIRICA, SMITH and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: July 27, 2012 )
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Petitioner, Johnnie Delantro Young, seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the
Magistrate Judge to issue a report and recommendation addressing his petition for habeas
corpus and compelling the District Court to rule on his habeas petition. He maintains that
the petition has been ripe for disposition since “the end of July 2011.” For the following
reasons, mandamus relief is not warranted.
Young filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on
December 22, 2009. Since that time there has been a constant stream of activity reflected
on the District Court’s docket, including the following. The Commonwealth responded
in March 2010, and in August 2010 the Magistrate Judge recommended the petition be
denied. The District Court declined to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s report and
recommendation and remanded the case to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.
In February 2011, Young moved for summary judgment. In April 2011, the Magistrate
Judge dismissed Young’s motion and ordered that he file one all-inclusive habeas corpus
petition. Young did so and the Commonwealth responded in July 2011, after requesting
and receiving an extension of time. In March 2012, Young filed an amended petition; the
Commonwealth responded less than a month later. The most recent entry on the docket
is a document Young filed on May 29, 2012, which the District Court treated as a
supplement to his habeas petition. This mandamus petition followed on June 21.
Issuance of a writ of mandamus is proper in only extraordinary circumstances. In
re Grand Jury, 680 F.3d 328, 340 (3d Cir. 2012). Its traditional purpose is “to confine an
inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise
its authority when it is its duty to do so.” Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n, 319 U.S. 21,
26 (1943). A petitioner must demonstrate a “clear and indisputable” right to the writ.
Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976). While undue delay can
amount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction, Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir.
1996), it is plain from the District Court’s docket that there has been no such undue delay
2
in Young’s case. We are confident that the Magistrate Judge will issue a report and
recommendation expeditiously.
Accordingly, we will deny the mandamus petition.
3