ALD-160 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 12-1906
___________
IN RE: PHILIP CARROLL, Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Related to 06-cv-05515)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
April 19, 2012
Before: SLOVITER, FISHER and WEIS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed May 2, 2012)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM.
In 2006, Philip Carroll commenced an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the
District Court against the Township of Mount Laurel seeking redress for an allegedly
uncompensated regulatory taking of his property. By order entered June 23, 2008, the
District Court granted the Township’s motion for summary judgment. Upon review, this
Court affirmed. Carroll v. Twp. of Mount Laurel, 315 F. App’x 402 (3d Cir. 2009).
On January 18, 2012, Carroll returned to the District Court and filed a motion to
reopen the case as well as a motion for reconsideration of its summary judgment ruling.
Approximately one month later, on February 17, 2012, he filed a motion pursuant to Rule
55(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking entry of a default judgment against
the Township on the ground that it had not responded to his motion for reconsideration.1
Carroll subsequently filed two additional requests for a default judgment—first on March
1, 2012, and again on March 12, 2012. The following week, on March 19, 2012, the
District Court entered an opinion and order denying Carroll’s motions to reopen and for
reconsideration. The court did not address Carroll’s requests for a default judgment.
On April 4, 2012, Carroll filed the present petition for writ of mandamus asking
us to compel the District Court to adjudicate his requests for a default judgment. We will
deny the petition. Mandamus is a drastic remedy available in only the most extraordinary
circumstances. In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005).
Although we may issue a writ of mandamus when a district court’s “undue delay is
tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction,” Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d
Cir. 1996), there has been no such delay here. We are confident that the District Court
will rule on Carroll’s motions in a timely manner. In any event, we note that, because
summary judgment has already been entered in this case, and the motion for
reconsideration denied, Carroll’s requests for a default judgment appear to be moot.
Accordingly, we will deny the mandamus petition.
1
At that time, the Clerk entered into the docket a “Quality Control Message”
advising him that his request for default could not be granted because the case had been
closed. The Clerk explained that its message was “for informational purposes only.”
2