Third Circuit disposition — 092506np-pdf

1
HLD-104 (June 2009) NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 09-2506
IN RE: RUSSELL ROBINSON,
Petitioner
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
District Court of the Virgin Islands
(Related to D.V.I. Crim. No. 04-cr-00005-002 and Civ. No. 08-cv-00103)
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
JUNE 30, 2009
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, WEIS AND GARTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: July 14, 2009)
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
On May 22, 2009, Russell Robinson filed this pro se mandamus petition
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651, seeking an order to compel the District Court to rule on the
motion that he filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, as well as several pending, related
motions. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that mandamus relief is not warranted.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy available in only the most extraordinary

-- 1 of 3 --

1 Notably, by orders entered May 12 and 15, 2009, the District Court ordered that two
other motions be removed from the docket. Along with the orders came warnings to
Robinson of the consequences of forging court orders and instructions that the Judge was
to approve all further motions before they could be added to the docket.
2
circumstances. In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005).
“A petitioner seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus 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). In addition, as a
general rule, the manner in which a court disposes of cases on its docket is within its
discretion. See In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982).
Nonetheless, mandamus may be warranted when a District Court’s “undue
delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction.” Madden, 102 F.3d at 79. The
District Court’s delay in this case, however, does not meet that standard. The District
Court received Robinson’s motion on November 17, 2008. The case was reassigned to
the Honorable Juan R. Sanchez on December 8, 2008. Then, beginning on January 14,
2009, and continuing until May 5, 2009, Robinson filed a barrage of motions, six of
which remain on the docket.1
In this case, only six months passed between the time that Robinson filed
his § 2255 motion and his mandamus petition. In addition, there have been circumstances
that likely contributed to the delay. One was the reassignment of the case to Judge
Sanchez one month after Robinson filed his § 2255 motion. Furthermore, Robinson’s
many motions, including those that the District Court has ordered removed from the

-- 2 of 3 --

3
docket, may also be contributing to the delay. We cannot say that the delay in
adjudicating Robinson’s § 2255 is “tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction” or
“rise[s] to the level of a denial of due process.” Madden, 102 F.3d at 79.
Accordingly, we will deny Robinson’s mandamus petition.

-- 3 of 3 --