BLD-066 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 23-2910
___________
IN RE: RAMSEY RANDALL,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Related to Civ. No. 5-23-cv-01389)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 21
February 8, 2024
Before: BIBAS, MATEY, and CHUNG, Circuit Judges.
(Opinion filed: March 1, 2024)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Ramsey Randall is a Pennsylvania prisoner currently incarcerated at the
State Correctional Institution at Greene. In April 2023, he filed a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus in the District Court claiming that his due process rights had been violated
during his parole-revocation proceedings. He then filed several motions in the District
Court, including motions for appointment of counsel, to compel documents, to be released
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7
does not constitute binding precedent.
on bail, and to add a defendant. When the Pennsylvania Parole Board responded to
Randall’s petition in August 2023, it indicated that Randall was still pursuing his
administrative remedies. Randall filed a reply and then asked the District Court to order
the Magistrate Judge to rule on his motions. In October 2023, when he still had not
received a ruling on his motions, Randall filed in this Court a petition for a writ of
mandamus asking us to compel the Magistrate Judge to rule on them.
We will deny the mandamus petition. A petitioner seeking the writ “must have no
other adequate means to obtain the desired relief, and must show that the right to issuance
is clear and indisputable.” Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996). Generally,
a court’s management of its docket is discretionary, see In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig.,
685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982), and there is no “clear and indisputable” right to have a
district court handle a case in a particular manner, see Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc.,
449 U.S. 33, 36 (1980) (per curiam). While mandamus may be warranted when a delay in
ruling amounts to a failure to exercise jurisdiction, see Madden, 102 F.3d at 79, that has
not happened here. To the contrary, after Randall filed his mandamus petition in this Court,
the Magistrate Judge directed the Government to provide an update on the status of his
administrative appeal and any subsequent state-court appeals. It thus appears that the case
is moving forward without unreasonable delay. We are confident that the Magistrate Judge
and District Court will adjudicate the pending motions, as well as the underlying habeas
petition, in due course.
2
Accordingly, we will deny the mandamus petition. Randall’s motions for
appointment of counsel and release on bail are denied.
3