In re: Craig Alford

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: SMITH, HARDIMAN and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 2. DLD-186

Case: 14-1296

Document: 003111559647

Page: 1

DLD-186

Date Filed: 03/14/2014

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 14-1296
___________
IN RE: CRAIG ALFORD,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(Related to Civ. No. 3-13-cv-02800)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
February 27, 2014
Before: SMITH, HARDIMAN and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: March 14, 2014 )
_________
OPINION
_________

PER CURIAM
Pro se petitioner Craig Alford has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus requesting that
we compel the District Court to rule on a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and related motions
that Alford has filed. For the reasons set forth below, we will deny Alford’s petition.
Alford filed his § 2254 petition in the District Court in November 2013. He has since
filed a flurry of other motions, including motions to appoint counsel, disqualify the District
Judge, change venue, and appoint class counsel. Each of these filings remains pending. On
January 28, 2014, Alford filed the instant mandamus petition.
1

Case: 14-1296

Document: 003111559647

Page: 2

Date Filed: 03/14/2014

Mandamus is a drastic remedy that is granted in only extraordinary cases. In re Diet
Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). To demonstrate that mandamus is
appropriate, a petitioner must establish that he or she has “no other adequate means” to obtain
the relief requested, and that he or she has a “clear and indisputable” right to issuance of the
writ. Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996).
Although mandamus may be warranted when a district court’s “undue delay is
tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction,” id., this case does not present such a situation.
At the time Alford filed his mandamus petition, his § 2254 petition and related motions had
been pending (at most) for just three months, which “does not yet rise to the level of a denial of
due process.” Id. (stating that four months of inaction is insufficient to warrant mandamus).
We are confident that the District Court will rule on Alford’s filings in due course.
Accordingly, we will deny Alford’s mandamus petition.

2