DLD-017 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 13-3597
___________
IN RE: ARNOLD REEVES,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Related to D.N.J. Civ. No. 1-13-cv-01795)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
October 24, 2013
Before: SMITH, HARDIMAN and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: November 04, 2013)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Arnold Reeves, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, petitions for a writ of
mandamus compelling the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to
rule on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition.
Reeves pleaded guilty in 1996 in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York to drug charges in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 812, 814(a)(1), and
841(b)(1)(A). Reeves was sentenced to 240 months of imprisonment, to be followed by
10 years of supervised release. Reeves appealed, and in July 2002 the United States
1
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment and conviction. See
United States v. Reeves, 296 F.3d 113, 117 (2d Cir. 2002).
In October 2002, Reeves unsuccessfully sought relief pursuant to a motion filed
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the Southern District of New York. See United States v.
Reeves, No. 02-CV-9309, 2005 WL 3288012 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2005). Reeves filed two
other unsuccessful challenges to his conviction and sentence in the Southern District of
New York. See Reeves v. United States, No. 96-CR-325, 2008 WL 4921764 (S.D.N.Y.
Oct. 3, 2008); Reeves v. United States, No. 96-CR-325, 2010 WL 3791967 (S.D.N.Y.
Sept. 23, 2010). In December 2009, Reeves filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey. The District Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, and on appeal
we summarily affirmed the District Court’s order. See Reeves v. United States, 417 F.
App’x 113, 114 (3d Cir. 2011).
On March 21, 2013, Reeves filed a second petition for a writ of habeas corpus
under § 2241 in the District of New Jersey. On May 9, 2013, Reeves filed a supplement
to his § 2241 petition. There has been no further activity on the District Court’s docket.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy available in extraordinary circumstances only. In
re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). A petitioner seeking
the writ “must have no other adequate means to obtain the desired relief, and must show
that the right to issuance is clear and indisputable.” Madden v. Meyers, 102 F.3d 74, 79
(3d Cir. 1996), superseded in part on other grounds by 3d Cir. L.A.R. 24.1(c) (1997).
Generally, a court’s management of its docket is discretionary. In re Fine Paper Antitrust
2
Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 2005). Due to the discretionary nature of docket
management, there is no “clear and indisputable” right to have the District Court handle a
case in a certain manner. See Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 36
(1980). However, mandamus may be warranted when a District Court’s delay “is
tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction.” Madden, 102 F.3d at 79.
Reeves first filed his § 2241 petition in March 2013, and filed a supplement to the
petition in May 2013. No action has been taken in the District Court since that time.
Although the current period of inactivity is not insignificant and raises some concern, we
do not believe that the delay warrants our intervention at this time. See id. (holding that
an approximately eight-month delay did not warrant relief). We are confident that the
District Court will address the § 2241 petition without undue delay. For the foregoing
reasons, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. This denial is without
prejudice to the filing of a new petition for a writ of mandamus if the District Court does
not act within ninety days of the date of this judgment.
3