*AMENDED BLD-446 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 13-3453
___________
IN RE: CRAIG ALFORD,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(Related to M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 3:13-cv-00435)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
October 3, 2013
Before: HARDIMAN, GREENAWAY, JR. and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: October 23, 2013 )
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Craig Alford has filed a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel
the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to rule on his
pending petition for a writ of habeas corpus. For the following reasons, we will deny the
mandamus petition.
In February 2013, Alford filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The
respondents filed an answer in March 2013, and Alford filed his traverse in April 2013.
Alford then filed a motion for summary judgment, which the District Court dismissed in
May 2013. In July 2013, Alford’s petition was transferred to Magistrate Judge
Mehalchick for initial consideration. Since then, Alford has filed a motion to expedite
and a motion for an evidentiary hearing. Those motions remain pending.
A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary
circumstances. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir.
2005). A petitioner seeking mandamus relief must demonstrate that “(1) no other
adequate means exist to attain the relief he desires, (2) the party’s right to issuance of the
writ is clear and indisputable, and (3) the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.”
Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam) (quotation marks
omitted). While the management of the docket is within a district court’s sound
discretion, see In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982),
mandamus may be warranted where a district court’s delay is tantamount to a failure to
exercise jurisdiction, see Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996).
Although Alford’s petition appears ripe for consideration, we are not presented
with any evidence of extraordinary delay, nor do we have reason to believe that there will
be delay going forward, particularly in light of the District Court’s recent adjudication of
Alford’s motion for summary judgment and its recent referral of his petition to
Magistrate Judge Mehalchick. In short, because the delay about which Alford complains
is not “tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction,” Madden, 102 F.3d at 79, we will
deny his petition for a writ of mandamus. We deny Alford’s motion for bail and release,
2
and we deny as moot Alford’s motions asking us to dispose of his mandamus petition and
grant him a writ of mandamus or a writ of habeas corpus.
3