BLD-152 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 10-1276
___________
In re: WILLIAM HENRY COLEMAN,
Petitioner
____________________________________
Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Related to: D.N.J. Civil No. 09-cv-03509)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
March 18, 2010
Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, RENDELL and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges.
(Filed May 21, 2010)
_________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_________
PER CURIAM
In July 2009, petitioner William Henry Coleman, a prisoner proceeding pro se,
filed in the District Court a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
The District Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. On October 27, 2009,
Coleman filed a motion for reconsideration. He filed this pro se mandamus petition on
January 27, 2010, requesting that the District Court act on his motion.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary cases, see In re Diet
Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005), as the petitioner must
demonstrate that he has “no other adequate means” to obtain the relief desired and a
“clear and indisputable” right to issuance of the writ. Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79
(3d Cir. 1996). Although a district court has discretion over the management of its
docket, see In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817-18 (3d Cir. 1982), a
federal appellate court “may issue a writ of mandamus on the ground that [the district
court’s] undue delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction.” Madden, 102
F.3d at 79.
We recognize that approximately five months have elapsed since the date Coleman
filed his motion for reconsideration. However, we cannot conclude that the overall delay
in this matter rises to the level of a denial of due process, and we are confident that the
District Court will enter an order in due course. Accordingly, the petition is denied.
2