Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
9-15-2008
In re: Michael Reyno
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 08-1785
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"In re: Michael Reyno " (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 537.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/537
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 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
HLD-147 (August 2008) NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-1785
___________
IN RE: MICHAEL CURTIS REYNOLDS,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania
(Related to 07-cv-00712)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
August 29, 2008
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, ALDISERT and GARTH, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: September 15, 2008)
_________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_________
PER CURIAM.
Michael Curtis Reynolds is a prisoner confined at the United States Penitentiary,
Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, he seeks a writ of
mandamus to compel a ruling of summary judgment in his favor.
Reynolds filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against two
correctional officers and a prison board member. After filing his complaint, Reynolds
filed several motions for a default judgment against the defendants. The District Court
ordered the defendants to show cause why a default judgment should not issue, and the
defendants ultimately filed an answer to Reynolds’ complaint. Thereafter, Reynolds filed
a series of motions for summary judgment and/or judgment on the pleadings. After the
District Court denied those motions in light of the defendants’ answer, Reynolds filed the
instant mandamus petition claiming an entitlement to summary judgment in his favor on
the grounds that a default judgment should have been entered against the defendants.
Mandamus relief is appropriate in only the most extraordinary of circumstances.
DeMasi v. Weiss, 669 F.2d 114, 117 (3d Cir. 1982). Petitioners must demonstrate that
they have no other adequate means available to obtain the desired relief and that the right
to issuance of the writ is “clear and indisputable.” Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daifon, Inc.,
449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980)). Here, Reynolds seeks an order directing a entry of summary
judgment in his favor, but he has not demonstrated that his right to such a ruling is “clear
and indisputable.”
As we have previously held, the management of its docket is committed to the
sound discretion of the district court. In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817
(3d Cir. 1982). When a matter is discretionary, it cannot typically be said that a litigant’s
right is “clear and indisputable.” Allied Chem. Corp., 449 U.S. at 35-36. Nonetheless,
we have held that a writ of mandamus may be warranted where undue delay is tantamount
to a failure to exercise jurisdiction. Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996).
2
Reynolds presents none of the extraordinary circumstances warranting the grant of
mandamus relief in this case. Although he cites defendants’ delay, they have finally
answered his complaint. Nor has Reynolds demonstrated undue delay on the part of the
District Court. When the defendants delayed in filing an answer to Reynolds’s complaint,
the District Court issued orders to show cause as to why a default judgment should not
issue, and the defendants furnished an answer. The District Court has also timely
addressed Reynolds’s motions, and we trust that it will continue to move this case along
expeditiously. Therefore, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.
3