In re: Christopher Hanson, et al

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: FUENTES, JORDAN and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 3. CLD-224

Case: 14-1392

Document: 003111590590

Page: 1

CLD-224

Date Filed: 04/16/2014

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 14-1392
___________
IN RE: CHRISTOPHER HANSON,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Related to E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 5:11-cv-01293)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
April 10, 2014
Before: FUENTES, JORDAN and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: April 16, 2014 )
_________
OPINION
_________

PER CURIAM
Christopher Hanson, a Pennsylvania state prisoner, petitions for a writ of
mandamus compelling the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to
grant or, at a minimum, adjudicate Hanson’s habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. See E.D. Pa. 5:11-cv-01293.
Hanson’s habeas petition appears to raise claims based upon potential Brady
violations. In March 2011, the District Court dismissed Hanson’s petition as an

Case: 14-1392

Document: 003111590590

Page: 2

Date Filed: 04/16/2014

unauthorized second and successive petition, and, upon application to this Court, we
authorized its filing. See C.A. No. 11-1846. In 2012, the District Court again dismissed
Hanson’s petition, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust available state court remedies.
Hanson exhausted his state court remedies in January 2014, and filed a motion in the
District Court requesting that it adjudicate his revised habeas petition. Hanson filed this
petition for a writ of mandamus one month later.1
We have previously held that a writ of mandamus may be warranted where undue
delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction. Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74,
79 (3d Cir. 1996). However, Hanson has failed to demonstrated undue delay. The
Magistrate Judge assigned to Hanson’s case filed a Report and Recommendation on
March 21, 2014, recommending that the habeas petition be dismissed as time-barred and
procedurally defaulted. Hanson filed objections to the R&R on March 31, 2014, and the
case remains pending. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and
Hanson’s objections have been before the District Judge for a very short period of time,
one that clearly does not rise to the level of undue delay and does not warrant our
intervention. See id.

1

Hanson, in his petition for a writ of mandamus, discusses his Brady claims and the
eventual exhaustion of his state court remedies. While specifically asking that this Court
“free” him, we interpret this as a request that we order the District Court to either grant
or, in light of his motion to the District Court asking it to render its decision, adjudicate
his habeas petition.
2

Case: 14-1392

Document: 003111590590

Page: 3

Date Filed: 04/16/2014

To the extent Hanson is requesting that this Court order the District Court to grant
his habeas petition and “free” him, Hanson is not entitled to the requested relief.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy available in only the most extraordinary circumstances,
and “should not be issued where relief can be obtained through an ordinary appeal.” In re
Chambers Dev. Co., 148 F.3d 214, 223 (3d Cir. 1998) (quoting Hahnemann Univ. Hosp.
v. Edgar, 74 F.3d 456, 462 (3d Cir.1996)). Hanson’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation are currently pending. If the District Court nevertheless
adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and dismisses Hanson’s
habeas petition, he will be entitled to seek relief through the appellate process.
For the foregoing reasons, we deny Hanson’s petition for a writ of mandamus.

3