HLD-007 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 22-1708
___________
IN RE: DAVID Q. WEBB,
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. 1-21-cv-01824 and D. Del. Civ. No. 1-22-cv-00461)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 21
May 26, 2022
Before: Chief Judge CHAGARES, PORTER and FUENTES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion file: June 16, 2022)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
David Webb, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking
us to compel a judge to screen two complaints that he has filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware. He also seeks an order compelling a ruling on
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). For the reasons that follow, we will deny
the mandamus petition.
In December 2021, Webb filed a pro se civil rights complaint against government
officials and other defendants raising claims related to the sale of certain real property
and the probate of his father’s estate. The case was assigned to District Judge Leonard
Stark, who granted Webb’s motion to proceed IFP. In January 2022, Webb moved the
District Court, which effectuates the service of complaints filed by litigants proceeding
IFP, for service of process.
The United States Senate then confirmed Judge Stark’s nomination to serve on the
Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. In March 2022, Webb’s case was reassigned to a new
docket referred to as the Vacant Judgeship docket. Shortly thereafter, Webb filed two
motions for a decision. He asserted that there had been no recent docket activity in his
case and that he was waiting for any instructions regarding the screening of his complaint
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 or its service on the defendants. Webb’s motions are pending.
In April 2022, Webb filed another civil rights complaint against government
officials and other defendants claiming, among other things, a discriminatory denial of
housing. He moved to proceed IFP. Webb’s case was assigned to the Vacant Judgeship
docket. On April 18, 2022, District Judge Richard Andrews granted Webb’s motion to
proceed IFP.
2
On the same day that Webb’s IFP motion was granted, this Court received his
petition for a writ of mandamus compelling the District Court to adjudicate his IFP
motions. To the extent Webb seeks relief with respect to his first action, Judge Stark
granted his IFP motion in January. To the extent he seeks relief with respect to his
second action, his IFP motion has now been granted and his petition in this regard is
moot. See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996).
Webb also seeks a writ compelling a judge to screen his complaints pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915. He asserts that there has been undue delay. Because Webb was granted
IFP status, his complaints are subject to the screening provision in 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). If the District Court decides that the complaints are frivolous or
malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek monetary relief against an immune defendant, it
shall dismiss them. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A favorable § 1915(e)(2)(B) decision
would allow his complaints to be served and his cases to proceed.
“Traditionally, the writ of mandamus has been 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.’” In re Chambers Dev. Co., Inc., 148 F.3d 214, 223 (3d Cir.
1998) (citations omitted). “The writ is a drastic remedy that ‘is seldom issued and its use
is discouraged.’” Id. A petitioner must establish that there are no other adequate means
to attain the desired relief and that the right to the writ is clear and indisputable. Id.
3
Mandamus relief may be afforded where undue delay is tantamount to a failure to
exercise jurisdiction. Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996).
The delay in Webb’s cases is not tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction.
As discussed above, in the first action, Judge Stark granted Webb’s motion to proceed
IFP in January 2022, the case was reassigned in late March to the Vacant Judgeship
docket, and Webb’s subsequent motions for a decision are pending. Webb filed his
second action on April 6, 2022, and Judge Andrews granted his IFP motion less than two
weeks later. Although Webb’s complaints have yet to be screened, the delay in Webb’s
first action has not been undue under the circumstances. Webb’s second action was only
recently filed. Mandamus relief is not warranted based on the alleged delay.
Mandamus relief is also not warranted at this time based on the assignment of
Webb’s cases to the Vacant Judgeship docket. The District Court has issued Standing
Orders outlining the procedures for how cases assigned to this docket shall be handled.1
These procedures apply after a complaint has been served; they do not address the
screening of complaints in IFP cases. Nonetheless, given the recent creation of the
1
Under the Standing Orders, the parties must together notify the District Court whether
they agree to consent to the handling of the case by a Magistrate Judge. If the parties do
not agree to consent to disposition by a Magistrate Judge, a Magistrate Judge will handle
certain pretrial matters and the Court will endeavor to assign the case to a Visiting Article
III Judge. The parties are directed to cooperate to move the case forward. See 3/9/22
Standing Order No. 2022-VAC-1; 3/16/22 Standing Order No. 2022-3. Webb tried to
comply with these orders by filing consent forms on his own.
4
Vacant Judgeship docket and the fact that Judge Andrews granted Webb’s IFP motion in
his second action, we cannot conclude that Webb’s complaints will not be addressed.
Accordingly, we will deny the mandamus petition. The denial of relief is without
prejudice to Webb’s filing of another mandamus petition in the event his complaints are
not addressed in the near future.
5