Mary Harris v. ( 2019 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 18-3786
___________
IN RE: MARY K. HARRIS,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
District Court of the Virgin Islands
(Related to D.V.I. Civ. No. 3-18-cv-00039)
District Court Judge: Curtis V. Gomez
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
December 24, 2018
Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE and PORTER, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: January 10, 2019)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Mary Harris filed this petition for a writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1651, seeking an order directing the District Court of the Virgin Islands to rule on her
motions to remand the underlying matter back to the court from which it was removed.
For the following reasons, we will deny the petition.
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
In September 2017, Harris filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the Virgin
Islands, Division of St. Thomas and St. John. The defendants in the matter removed the
case to the District Court. On July 12, 2018, and again on August 6, 2018, Harris filed a
motion to remand the case back to the Superior Court. The motions remain pending in
the District Court. Harris filed a mandamus petition in this Court alleging extraordinary
delay in the adjudication of her motions.
“[A]n appellate court may issue a writ of mandamus on the ground that undue
delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction,” Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74,
79 (3d Cir. 1996), but the manner in which a court controls its docket is discretionary,
In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982). We do not find a
failure to exercise jurisdiction in this case. Although a six-month delay is not
insignificant and raises some concern, see Madden, 102 F.3d at 79, we do not believe that
the delay is so lengthy as to justify our intervention at this time. We are confident that
the District Court will rule on the motions without undue delay.
For the foregoing reasons, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.
2