Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
8-22-2007
In Re: Louis Tyler
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-3274
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"In Re: Louis Tyler " (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 551.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/551
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 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
ALD-329 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 07-3274
________________
IN RE: LOUIS C. TYLER,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Related to Civ. No. 07-cv-02077)
_____________________________________
Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
August 2, 2007
BEFORE: SLOVITER, CHAGARES AND COWEN, CIRCUIT JUDGES.
(Filed: August 22, 2007)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Louis C. Tyler, a state inmate, petitions for a writ of mandamus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1651 requiring the District Judge to act on a June 3, 2007, motion for
reconsideration in relation to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus sought on May 14,
2007.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy granted only in extraordinary cases. See In
re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). The petitioner must
establish that she has “no other adequate means” to obtain relief and that she has a “clear
and indisputable” right to issuance of the writ, and the reviewing court must determine
that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances. Id. at 378-79. District courts are
generally given discretion over management of their dockets. See In re Fine Paper
Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817-18 (3d Cir. 1982). Only when undue delay is
tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction does it provide grounds for issuance of a
writ of mandamus. See Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996).
Here, Tyler filed the instant mandamus petition in this court on July 30,
2007, just 45 days after he had filed the motion for reconsideration on which he wishes
the District Court to rule. Such routine delay falls well short of what might support
issuance of a writ of mandamus by this Court. See id. (more than 130 days without ruling
on a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation regarding a petition for writ of
habeas corpus not grounds for issuing writ of mandamus).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.
2