BLD-271 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 11-3126
___________
IN RE: THEODORE YOUNG, SR.,
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. 05-cr-0056-16)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
August 18, 2011
Before: SLOVITER, JORDAN and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: August 29, 2011)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Theodore Young, Sr., petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus reassigning his
motion to vacate his sentence and related motions to a new district judge, and ordering
that judge to “rule expeditiously” on those motions. We will deny Young’s petition
without prejudice.
In July 2010, Young filed a pro se motion to vacate his sentence, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255. He also filed (1) a motion for return of property; (2) a motion for
1
appointment of counsel; (3) a motion for bail pending disposition of his § 2255 motion;
(4) a motion to strike the government’s sur-reply regarding the motion for return of
property; and (5) a motion to strike the government’s response to his § 2255 motion as
untimely. In the months that followed, the District Court denied Young’s motions for
counsel, bail, and return of property, as well as his motions to strike. 1
In April 2011, Young filed a motion, pursuant to Rule 5(c) of the Rules Governing
§ 2255 Cases, for a complete copy of the transcript of his voir dire proceedings in light of
his claim that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in connection with the jury
selection process. He subsequently filed a second motion urging the District Court to
rule on his request for transcripts. On August 8, 2011, Young filed a petition for a writ of
mandamus asking us to reassign his outstanding motions to a new district judge for
prompt resolution.
Mandamus is a “drastic and extraordinary remedy” available only in “exceptional
circumstances.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380
(2004) (citation omitted). A petitioner seeking mandamus “must show that the right to
issuance is clear and indisputable.” See Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir.
1996). Although matters of docket control are generally left to the court’s discretion, see
In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982), mandamus may be
warranted when a district court’s delay equates to a failure to exercise jurisdiction. See
1
Young appealed the District Court’s denial of his motion for bail and his motion
for return of property to this Court. We have since affirmed both decisions.
2
Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996).
Young’s § 2255 motion was fully briefed as of October 25, 2010. Although the
District Court has not yet ruled on that motion, it exercised jurisdiction through
December 10, 2010, by ruling on other motions. That there has been no action for eight
months may be troubling, but it does not yet rise to a level justifying our intervention.
See Madden, 102 F.3d at 79 (eight months of inaction insufficient to compel mandamus).
Likewise, the District Court’s failure to rule on Young’s request for transcripts, which
has been outstanding for four months, is not tantamount to a failure to exercise
jurisdiction.
We are confident that the District Court will rule on Young’s pending § 2255
motion and his motions for transcripts without any further delay. Accordingly, we will
deny Young’s mandamus petition without prejudice to his right to seek mandamus relief
should the District Court fail to expeditiously resolve those motions. 2
2
In his motions for transcripts, Young indicates that he intends to file a motion for
summary judgment. While we expect the District Court to resolve Young’s
motions for transcripts as soon as possible, we understand that the filing of
additional motions might further delay final resolution of the § 2255 motion.
3