Third Circuit disposition — 242701np-pdf

HLD-003 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 24-2701
___________
IN RE: RICHARD ANTONIO HODGE, JR.,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
District Court of the Virgin Islands
(Related to D.V.I. Crim. No. 3:14-cr-0001-001)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
November 7, 2024
Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, HARDIMAN, and PORTER, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: December 31, 2024)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Pro se petitioner Richard Hodge, Jr. seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the
District Court to rule on his motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. For the reasons that
follow, we will deny the mandamus petition.
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
In November 2022, Hodge filed a § 2255 motion challenging a conviction from
2015. In April 2024, a Magistrate Judge issued a report that recommended denying his
motion. Hodge mailed objections to the District Court, which were received in May 2024
but were not docketed until October 2024. He also mailed a motion to amend his § 2255
motion in November 2023, which was ultimately docketed with Hodge’s objections. In
September 2024, he filed a mandamus petition alleging that the District Court has
delayed ruling on his filings and seeks this Court’s intervention with obtaining a decision
on both motions.
A writ of mandamus is a “drastic remedy” that may be granted only in
“extraordinary circumstances in response to an act amounting to a judicial usurpation of
power.” In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005) (citation
omitted). “[M]atters of docket control . . . are committed to the sound discretion of the
district court.” In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982)
(citation omitted). However, a writ of mandamus may be warranted where a district
court’s “undue delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction.” See Madden v.
Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996).
Because it appears that the Clerk of the District Court only recently docketed
Hodge’s motion to amend and objections, we have full confidence that the District Court
will rule on Hodge’s motions without undue delay. Accordingly, we will deny Hodge’s
mandamus petition.

-- 2 of 2 --