CLD-065 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 16-3904
___________
IN RE: AKEEM R. GUMBS,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
District Court of the Virgin Islands
(Related to D.V.I. Crim. No. 3:11-cr-00021-001)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
December 8, 2016
Before: FISHER, SHWARTZ and BARRY, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: December 16, 2016)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Akeem R. Gumbs petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the District Court of
the Virgin Islands to rule on his (1) pending motion for summary judgment filed in
connection with his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence filed pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2255; (2) pending motion to dismiss count 6 of the indictment; and (3)
motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
This is the third petition for a writ of mandamus Gumbs has filed in this case; we have
denied his previous petitions. See C.A. No. 16-1452; 16-2689. We will likewise deny
this petition.
Gumbs filed a sixth amended § 2255 motion on October 5, 2015; a motion for
summary judgment on October 20, 2015; and a motion to dismiss on February 16, 2016.
In May 2016, the District Court referred Gumbs’ § 2255 motion to a Magistrate Judge.
Gumbs filed an amended motion to dismiss in June. The Magistrate Judge recommended
Gumbs’ § 2255 motion be denied in October; Gumbs filed objections to the Report and
Recommendation in November. Gumbs has now filed a petition for a writ of mandamus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651 seeking an order directing the District Court to enter
judgment on the § 2255 motion, motion for summary judgment, and motion to dismiss.
We rejected Gumbs’ last two mandamus petitions, and we will reject this one as
well. Mandamus is an appropriate remedy only in the most extraordinary situations. In
re Pasquariello, 16 F.3d 525, 528 (3d Cir. 1994). To justify such a remedy, a petitioner
must show that he has (1) no other adequate means of obtaining the desired relief and (2)
a “clear and indisputable” right to issuance of the writ. Haines v. Liggett Grp. Inc., 975
F.2d 81, 89 (3d Cir. 1992) (citing Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U.S. 394, 403
(1976)).
Here, the Magistrate Judge recently entered a report and recommendation
regarding the § 2255 motion. A district court retains discretion over the manner in which
it controls its docket. See In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir.
1982). Presumably the District Court will enter a final judgment in due time, within its
2
discretion. Likewise, Gumbs’ amended motion to dismiss has been pending for five
months, far from an “undue delay . . . tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction.”
Cf. Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996), superseded in part on other
grounds by 3d Cir. L.A.R. 24.1(c). Gumbs’ last petition for a writ of mandamus was
denied by this Court two months ago. The only change from then to now is that the
District Court has exercised its discretion in utilizing the Magistrate Judge in pursuing a
diligent resolution of Gumbs’ voluminous motions, claims, and filings. Accordingly, our
conclusion is the same. The petition will be denied.
3