BLD-061 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 11-4127
___________
In re: JEFFREY ALONZO SIMMS,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
(Related to D. Del. Civ. No. 1-11-cv-01010)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
December 8, 2011
Before: SCIRICA, SMITH and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges
(Filed: December 23, 2011)
_________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_________
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner Jeffrey Alonzo Simms, proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of mandamus
compelling the District Court to rule on his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. For the
reasons that follow, we will deny the petition.
Simms filed his petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the District Court on
October 21, 2011. On October 25, 2011, Simms requested that the District Court provide
1
him with copies of “criminal case: motion to get good day credits on 7-8-2006” and
“hearing in case 11:5132 U.S. Supreme Court.” The District Court responded the next
day by letter, noting that his requests for copies appeared to be for closed cases, and
informing him of the fee for copies. On November 16, 2011, Simms filed a petition for a
writ of mandamus. In it, he appears to make substantive arguments from his § 2254
petition and asks this court to “order the institution to provide adequate records,”
including “criminal and medical documents.”
Mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary cases, see In re
Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005); the petitioner must
demonstrate that he has “no other adequate means” to obtain the relief desired and a
“clear and indisputable” right to issuance of the writ. Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79
(3d Cir. 1996). Less than two months have passed since Simms filed his § 2254 petition;
thus, there has been no appreciable delay in the District Court. See Madden, 102 F.3d at
79 (an appellate court “may issue a writ of mandamus on the ground that undue delay is
tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction”). We are confident that the District Court
will enter an order in due course. As to his claims for documents, his requests are nearly
unintelligible. It is impossible for us to tell what documents from which cases, closed or
otherwise, he is seeking. In any event, he has not demonstrated a clear and indisputable
right to the copies. The District Court informed him that he may request and pay for such
copies in the future. Accordingly, the petition is denied.
2