in Re: Kevino Graham v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 3d Cir. 1996 . Generally, a court’s management of its docket…

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 22-1989
___________
IN RE: KEVINO GRAHAM,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Related to 2:14-cr-00623)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
July 14, 2022
Before: KRAUSE, MATEY and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: August 30, 2022)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Kevino Graham has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus requesting that we
direct the District Court to rule on his motion for a temporary injunction. For the
following reasons, we will deny the petition.
In 2016, a jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania found Graham guilty of sex trafficking by force and attempting to commit
* 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
that offense. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591 and 1594. The District Court sentenced him to 100
years in prison. We granted the Government’s motion to summarily affirm the District
Court’s judgment on direct appeal, see C.A. No. 17-3593, denied Graham’s requests for a
certificate of appealability following the District Court’s denial of his motion under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 and his motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), see C.A. Nos.
20-1631 and 22-1254, and denied his application for permission to file a second or
successive § 2255 motion, see C.A. No. 22-1291.
In February 2022, Graham filed a motion for a temporary injunction, asking the
District Court to change the jury instructions concerning offenses under § 1591. (ECF
572.) That motion remains pending. Graham now asks us to direct the District Court to
rule on that motion.
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). 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). That said, a writ of mandamus may issue where a District Court’s
“undue delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction.” Madden, 102 F.3d at 79.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Graham’s motion for a temporary injunction has been pending since February
2022. The delay presented here has not yet amounted to a failure to exercise jurisdiction,
although if it continues the delay could present a matter of some concern. See Madden,
102 F.3d at 79. We are confident that the District Court will rule on Graham’s pending
motion in a timely manner.
Accordingly, we will deny the mandamus petition.1 The denial is without
prejudice to a renewed petition for a writ of mandamus if the District Court has not ruled
on the motion for a temporary injunction within a reasonable time
1 Petitioner’s response to the Clerk’s June 9, 2022 order, which we construe as a motion
to be relieved from the service requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
21(a)(1), is granted.

-- 3 of 3 --