in Re: Arthur Morrison v. United States Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of Cal., 426 U.S. 394, 403 1976 . Although a…

CLD-148 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-1786
___________
IN RE: ARTHUR MORRISON,
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. 08-cv-05408)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
April 2, 2009
Before: RENDELL, HARDIMAN AND ALDISERT, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: May 11, 2009)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Arthur Morrison, a prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of
mandamus compelling the District Court to rule on his pending motion for
reconsideration. For the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition.
Morrison filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in
November 2008. In December 2008, the District Court dismissed the petition for lack of
jurisdiction. On December 29, 2008, Morrison filed a motion for reconsideration. He

-- 1 of 2 --

2
then filed a supplemental motion to reopen and a second supplemental motion to reopen
in January and February 2009, respectively. Morrison also sent a letter to the District
Court inquiring about the status of his motion and requesting an expedited decision
because of his poor health. On March 23, 2009, Morrison filed the instant petition for
mandamus. The motion for reconsideration remains pending at this time.
The writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. To justify issuance of the writ,
a petitioner must demonstrate that he has a clear and indisputable right to relief. See Kerr
v. United States Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of Cal., 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976). Although a court
of appeals may issue a writ of mandamus on the ground that undue delay is tantamount to
a failure to exercise jurisdiction, see Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996),
the manner in which the District Court controls its docket is discretionary. See In re: Fine
Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982). Morrison’s initial
reconsideration motion was filed at the end of December 2008, and he has complicated
the resolution of that motion by filing a supplemental memorandum each month
thereafter. We cannot conclude that the overall three-month delay in this matter rises to
the level of a denial of due process, see Madden, 102 F.3d at 79, and we are confident
that the District Court will issue a decision promptly. Accordingly, the petition is denied.
Petitioner’s Motion to Expedite Consideration of Petition for Writ of Mandamus is denied
as moot.

-- 2 of 2 --