ALD-361 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 14-3196
___________
IN RE: ROBERT STURMAN,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Related to E.D. Pa. Crim. No. 09-cr-00665-001)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
September 5, 2014
Before: RENDELL, FISHER and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: October 3, 2014)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Pro se litigant Robert Sturman has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus,
requesting that we compel the District Court to act on his pending motion filed pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. For the reasons set forth below, we will deny the petition.
In June 2013, Sturman filed a § 2255 motion challenging his convictions for
interstate transportation of stolen property, mail fraud, and wire fraud. The Government
filed its response, and after a permitted extension, Sturman filed his reply on December
30, 2013. He subsequently filed two amendments to that document: one in January 2014
and one in March 2014. On July 8, he filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in this
Court alleging extraordinary delay in the adjudication of his motion below.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy that is available only in extraordinary situations.
See Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). The manner in which a court
manages its docket is discretionary, see In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810,
817 (3d Cir. 1982), but nonetheless, “an appellate court may issue a writ of mandamus on
the ground that undue delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction.” Madden
v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996). We find no failure to exercise jurisdiction in
this case. Although an eight-month delay is not insignificant and does raise some
concern, see id., we do not believe that it is so lengthy as to justify our intervention at this
time. We are confident that the District Court will rule on the § 2255 motion without
undue delay. Accordingly, the petition is denied. This denial is without prejudice to
Sturman’s filing a new petition for a writ of mandamus, should the District Court fail to
act on his § 2255 motion within a reasonable time.
2