Eric Jones v. , 609 F. App'x 64 ( 2015 )

DLD-263 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 15-2482
___________
IN RE: ERIC KENNETH JONES,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(Related to M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 1-13-cv-02526)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
July 2, 2015
Before: FISHER, SHWARTZ and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: July 8, 2015)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Petitioner, Eric Kenneth Jones, asks this Court for a writ of mandamus ordering
the District Court to explain the delay in his habeas case “in which relief is eminent
[sic].” Jones filed his habeas petition in the District Court on October 8, 2013. In May of
2014, he requested permission to amend his petition. The District Court allowed the
amendment, which was filed on June 13, 2014. In July, Jones moved to amend his
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
memorandum of law. The District Court granted that motion and granted the
respondents’ corresponding motion for an extension of time to respond to any amended
filing. Jones did not file an amended memorandum but, on August 4, 2014, filed a
“motion to have habeas corpus relief granted, based off state court record.” In that
motion, Jones argued that the District Court should grant him relief based on review of
the state court record without waiting for a response to his petition. The District Court
denied Jones’s request and granted the respondents’ request for one more extension of
time. After the response was filed on September 15, 2014, Jones moved for an extension
of time to file a reply, which was also granted. On October 31, 2014, less than a month
after filling his reply, Jones filed a “motion to compel the court not to delay in its
decision to grant relief” stating that respondents had not shown any reason why his
request for relief should not be granted. Jones also moved for immediate bail pending the
determination of his claims. On May 13, 2015, the District Court referred the petition to
a Magistrate Judge, who denied the pending motions. Jones opposed the order referring
the case and, on June 18, 2015, filed a petition for writ of mandamus, asking this Court to
order the District Court to “explain the delay” in granting him relief. On June 26, 2015,
the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation to deny Jones’s habeas
petition.
“Mandamus provides a drastic remedy that a court should grant 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)(quotation
omitted). To demonstrate that mandamus is appropriate, a petitioner must establish that
2
he has a “clear and indisputable” right to the issuance of the writ and that he has “no
other adequate means to obtain the desired relief.” 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)).
Jones has not met the standard for the issuance of a writ of mandamus. Jones has
caused a significant portion of the delay in his own case by requesting extensions of time
and permission to amend his filings. In addition, Jones’s case is moving forward apace
and the Magistrate Judge has already issued a report and recommendation. We will deny
the petition.
3