CLD-039 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 11-3786
___________
IN RE: ERIC CRAFT,
Petitioner
____________________________
Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania
(Related to D.C. Criminal No. 02-cr-00011-1)
______________________________
Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed R. App. P.
November 10, 2011
Before: RENDELL, HARDIMAN and ROTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed : December 22, 2011)
_________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_________
PER CURIAM
Eric Craft, proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to rule on several motions.
We will deny the petition.
In September 2002, Craft pleaded guilty in the District Court to a superseding
information charging him with causing the death of a person through the use of a firearm
during a crime of violence or drug trafficking offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(j). Craft was
sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 480 months, to be followed by five years of
supervised release. We affirmed the judgment on direct appeal. See United States v.
Craft, 139 F. App’x 372 (3d Cir. 2005). The United States Supreme Court denied Craft’s
petition for writ of certiorari and, in December 2006, the District Court denied Craft’s
timely motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We subsequently denied
Craft’s request for a certificate of appealability.
Since then, Craft has filed several more motions, largely challenging the District
Court’s jurisdiction over his criminal case. He has won no relief in the District Court or
on appeal. On September 14, 2011, Craft filed in the District Court a motion to dismiss
the 2002 superseding information, again arguing that the District Court lacked
jurisdiction to adjudicate his criminal case. On September 28, 2011, Craft filed in the
District Court another motion to dismiss the information, arguing that the document
“failed to allege the federal jurisdictional element.” On October 27, 2011, Craft filed the
instant petition for writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the District Court to
rule on those motions.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy that is granted only in extraordinary cases. In re
Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). It may be “used to
confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it
to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so.” Id. (internal citation and quotation
omitted). To demonstrate that mandamus is appropriate, a petitioner must establish that
he or she has “no other adequate means” to obtain the relief requested, and that he or she
2
has a “clear and indisputable” right to issuance of the writ. Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d
74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996).
As a general rule, “matters of docket control” are within the sound discretion of
the District Court. In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982).
Nonetheless, an appellate court may issue a writ of mandamus when an undue delay in
adjudication is “tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction.” Madden, 102 F.3d at 79.
This case, however, does not present such a situation. A delay of approximately two
months in the disposition of Craft’s pending motions “does not yet rise to the level of a
denial of due process.” See id. (stating that eight months of inaction is insufficient to
compel mandamus). We are confident that the District Court will rule on Craft’s motions
due course. Accordingly, Craft’s petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.
3