Third Circuit disposition — 251381np-pdf

HLD-009 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 25-1381
___________
IN RE: JUAN ALVAREZ PEREZ,
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. 1:24-cv-05715)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
March 27, 2025
Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, HARDIMAN and PORTER, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: April 25, 2025)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Juan Alvarez Perez has filed a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus compelling
the District Court to rule on his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. We will deny the petition.
Perez filed a § 2241 petition in April 2024. The District Court granted the
Government an extension of time to respond, and the Government filed its response in
* 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
July 2024. The District Court then granted Perez an extension of time to reply to the
Government’s response, which Perez filed on August 29, 2024. He now files a petition
for a writ of mandamus asking us to compel the District Judge to rule on his § 2241
petition.
A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy that is available only in extraordinary
cases. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). Perez
must show that he has no other adequate means to obtain relief and that he has a clear and
indisputable right to the writ. Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per
curiam). While district courts have discretion over docket management, see In re Fine
Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982), a writ of mandamus may be
warranted where “undue delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction.”
Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996). The District Court has exercised
jurisdiction and granted both parties’ requests for extensions of filing deadlines in this
case. We cannot conclude that the current delay in deciding Perez’s § 2241 petition
constitutes a failure to exercise jurisdiction or warrants the extraordinary remedy of
mandamus. We are confident that the District Court will issue a ruling in due course.
We will thus deny Perez’s mandamus petition without prejudice to his filing
another mandamus petition if the District Court does not act without undue delay.

-- 2 of 2 --