Third Circuit disposition — 252841np-pdf

1
BLD-038 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 25-2841
___________
IN RE: BRADLEY LIVINGSTON,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(Related to D.N.J. Civ. No. 2:23-cv-23006)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
November 20, 2025
Present: KRAUSE, MATEY, and BOVE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: January 21, 2026)
___________
OPINION*
___________
PER CURIAM
Pro se petitioner Bradley Livingston has filed a petition for writ of mandamus
related to a civil case he has pending in the United States District Court for the District of
* 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 3 --

2
New Jersey. We will deny Livingston’s mandamus petition along with his other pending
motions filed in this Court.
In May 2025, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the underlying District Court case
issued a report and recommendation to dismiss Livingston’s action without prejudice for
his failure to prosecute. See D.N.J. Civ. No. 23-cv-23006, Dkt. # 204. The Magistrate
Judge also issued an order for Livingston to pay Defendants’ attorney’s fees as a sanction
due to Livingston’s failure to appear at an April 2, 2025 conference. See D.N.J. Civ. No.
23-cv-23006, Dkt. # 205. In September 2025, the Magistrate Judge imposed another
sanction against Livingston after he failed to appear at an April 28, 2025 conference. See
id., Dkt. # 221.
Livingston has now filed a mandamus petition asking this Court to direct the
District Court to rule on his objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report and
recommendation and enter a final judgment in his favor. He also asks this Court, in
separate motions, to vacate the monetary sanctions levied against him by the Magistrate
Judge.
A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary
circumstances. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005).
Mandamus should not issue unless the petitioner has “no other adequate means to attain
the relief” sought and has shown that his right to the writ is “clear and indisputable.” Id.
at 378-79 (quoting Cheney v. United States Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004)).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Mandamus relief can be warranted when a court’s “undue delay is tantamount to a failure
to exercise jurisdiction.” Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996).
First, with respect to Livingston seeking mandamus relief related to undue delay,
any delay at this point does not qualify for mandamus relief. We are confident the District
Court will address the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation and Livingston’s
objections in due course. Second, Livingston has failed to show he is entitled to
mandamus relief on the sanctions issued by the Magistrate Judge.
Accordingly, we will deny Livingston’s mandamus petition. To the extent
Livingston’s outstanding motions request other types of relief, they are also denied.

-- 3 of 3 --