Wayne Hoffman v. , 516 F. App'x 101 ( 2013 )

DLD-152 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 13-1468
___________
IN RE: WAYNE I. HOFFMAN,
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. 12-cv-07018)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
March 14, 2013
Before: AMBRO, SMITH and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: March 27, 2013)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Pro se petitioner, Wayne Hoffman, seeks a writ of mandamus directing the District
Court to rule on the motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and for the appointment of
counsel that accompanied the underlying civil rights complaint he filed on November 14, 2012,
and to direct that service of process be issued by the United States Marshal’s Service. While
we acknowledge that the motions indeed remain pending and that the District Court has an
obligation to rule on them, mandamus is not warranted in this case. Accordingly, we will deny
the petition.
Mandamus is a “drastic remedy” available in extraordinary circumstances only. In re:
Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). A petitioner seeking the writ
“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),
superseded in part on other grounds by 3d Cir. L.A.R. 24.1(c) (1997). Generally, a court’s
management of its docket is discretionary, In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817
(3d Cir. 1982), and there is no “clear and indisputable” right to have a district court handle a
case in a certain manner. See Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 36 (1980).
However, mandamus may be warranted when a district court’s delay “is tantamount to a failure
to exercise jurisdiction.” Madden, 102 F.3d at 79.
The delay complained of by Hoffman is not tantamount to a failure to exercise
jurisdiction. Because less than four months have passed since Hoffman filed his complaint and
little more than two and a half months since the filing of his amended complaint on December
31, 2012, the delay “does not yet rise to the level of a denial of due process.” Id. (denying a
mandamus petition where the district court had not ruled on petitioner’s motion in four
months). We are fully confident that the District Court will adjudicate Hoffman’s motions and
complaint without undue delay.
We likewise deny Hoffman’s petition to the extent he requests a change of venue. The
express terms of 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provide that a federal district court may transfer civil
actions from one federal district court to another. While the Supreme Court has found that a
federal court of appeals may effect a transfer by direct order where “unusual circumstances”
require “extraordinary action,” see Koehring Co. v. Hyde Constr. Co., 382 U.S. 362, 364-65
2
(1966), no such unusual circumstances appear based on Hoffman=s petition.
Accordingly, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.
3