Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-24-2005
In Re: Vernal Alston
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-2766
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"In Re: Vernal Alston " (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 966.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/966
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
HPS-101 (June 2005) NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_______________
No. 05-2766
_______________
IN RE: VERNAL ALSTON,
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. 04-cv-02218)
_______________
Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. Pro.
June 10, 2005
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges
(Filed: June 24, 2005)
_______________
OPINION
_______________
PER CURIAM.
Pro se petitioner Vernal Alston seeks a writ of mandamus 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 filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Alston
filed the underlying habeas petition in October 2004, which he amended in December
2004. After the District Court granted their three requests to extend the response period,
1
the respondents filed a response to Alston’s amended petition on March 18, 2005.
Alston filed this mandamus petition on May 31, 2005.
Mandamus is an appropriate remedy only in the most extraordinary of
situations. In re Pasquariello, 16 F.3d 525, 528 (3d Cir. 1994). To justify such a
remedy, a petitioner must demonstrate that he has a clear and indisputable right to
issuance of the writ. See Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976);
DeMasi v. Weiss, 669 F.2d 114, 117 (3d Cir. 1982). It is well-settled that the manner in
which a District Court disposes of the cases on its docket is committed to its sound
discretion. In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation, 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982).
Some delays, however, are so intolerable as to warrant appellate intervention. See
Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996).
In Alston’s case, we conclude that the extent of the delay has not yet risen
to the level of a denial of due process, see id., because the case has not been dormant for
any significant period. Indeed, the most recent activity on Alston’s petition occurred in
April 2005. We are confident that the District Court will rule on Alston’s habeas petition
without unnecessary delay.
Accordingly, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.
2