Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Raymond WINCHESTER, Petitioner
OPINION *
Pro se petitioner Raymond Winchester seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the District Court to rule on a petition he filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition.
In September 2018, Winchester filed a habeas petition in the District Court. He subsequently filed a mandamus petition in this Court alleging that the District Court had delayed ruling on his habeas petition and had not responded to certain filings. Because his case was proceeding steadily, we denied Winchester’s request for mandamus relief in August 2019. The District Court then ordered respondents to respond to Winchester’s habeas petition, which they did on January 30, 2020, after being granted an extension. On May 22, 2020, this Court received a series of documents from Winchester that have been construed as a petition for a writ of mandamus. The documents appear to re-allege that the District Court has delayed ruling on Winchester’s habeas petition.
A writ of mandamus is a “drastic remedy” that may be granted only in “extraordinary circumstances in response to an act amounting to a judicial usurpation of power.” In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). “[M]atters of docket control ․ are committed to the sound discretion of the district court.” In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982) (citation omitted). However, a writ of mandamus may be warranted where a district court’s “undue delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction.” See Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996).
Because proceedings in the District Court are moving forward and only four months have passed since respondents filed their response to Winchester’s habeas petition, the extraordinary remedy of mandamus relief is not warranted at this time. We continue to have full confidence that the District Court will rule on Winchester’s petition without undue delay.
Accordingly, we will deny Winchester’s mandamus petition.
PER CURIAM
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 20-2074
Decided: June 15, 2020
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)