Third Circuit disposition — 093949np-pdf

1
HLD-042 (December 2009) NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-3949
___________
IN RE: RONALD G. DANDAR,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(Related to W.D. Pa. Civ. No. 08-cv-00060)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
December 30, 2009
Before: Chief Judge SCIRICA, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges
Opinion filed January 27, 2010
___________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM.
Richard Dandar is a Pennsylvania prisoner who submitted a petition for writ
of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania in late February 2008. The petition was filed on the receipt of his filing fee
on March 11, 2008. In May 2008, the District Court directed the Commonwealth to
respond to the petition and to furnish the state court records. The Commonwealth filed a

-- 1 of 4 --

2
response in June 2008. The state court records arrived in late August 2009. Dandar’s
habeas petition remains pending.
Since the time that he filed his petition, Dandar has filed numerous motions
in the District Court. In two separate motions, he sought the recusal of the Magistrate
Judge and the District Court Judge assigned to his case. He filed an appeal in this Court
of the orders denying his motions for recusal. He also filed, for instance, a motion to stay
proceedings in the District Court, a motion for release on bail (which he also filed in this
Court), motions for injunctive and declaratory relief, and motions to compel. The District
Court has dutifully disposed of the motions that Dandar filed as they have become ripe for
disposition. Dandar continues to file motions (and appeals to this Court related to some
of the District Court’s rulings).
Dandar now presents a petition for a writ of mandamus. He seeks a writ of
mandamus (or a writ of error or a writ of coram nobis) to compel a ruling and final
judgment on his pending habeas petition. In his mandamus petition, he also complains
about how he is being housed in prison. Dandar filed two documents after he filed his
mandamus petition. In the first one, he explains that he is entitled to mandamus relief
because the lack of a ruling on his habeas petition and the delay violate rules of civil
procedure and principles of due process, among other things. He also requests that
counsel be appointed. Dandar additionally includes a motion for declaratory relief,
namely (it appears), a ruling that the District Court is to proceed on the original record in

-- 2 of 4 --

3
his case. Dandar’s other filing, in which he seems to seek declaratory and injunctive
relief, relates to how he is being housed in prison (and the potential repercussions of his
housing situation).
We will deny Dandar’s petition for a writ of mandamus. Mandamus is an
extraordinary remedy. See Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Within the
discretion of the issuing court, mandamus traditionally may be “used ... only ‘to confine
an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to
exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so.’” Id. (citations omitted). Although an
appellate court may issue a writ of mandamus when an undue delay in adjudication can be
considered a failure to exercise jurisdiction that rises to the level of a due process
violation, see Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996), a writ of mandamus is
not appropriate here. Although a considerable amount of time has passed since the initial
filing of Dandar’s habeas petition, see id., (noting that a seven-month delay in
adjudicating a habeas petition may be “of concern”), much less time has passed since the
filing of the state court records required to adjudicate it. Moreover, during the entire time
that his habeas petition has been pending, the District Court has been busy deciding the
numerous motions that Dandar filed. The District Court has not failed to exercise
jurisdiction over Dandar’s case, and we are confident that the District Court will
expeditiously rule on Dandar’s petition.

-- 3 of 4 --

We also deny his associated requests for a writ of error or a writ of coram nobis.1
Common law writs are of no help to Dandar in this context. See United States v. Valdez-
Pacheco, 237 F.3d 1077, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2001).
4
For these reasons, we will deny Dandar’s mandamus petition. We also1
deny Dandar’s motion for appointment of counsel and his other pending motions (many
of which do not relate to this mandamus action or his habeas action in the District Court).

-- 4 of 4 --