In re: Kai Ingram

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: FISHER, SHWARTZ and SLOVITER, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 4. DLD-099

Case: 14-4769

DLD-099

Document: 003111868494

Page: 1

Date Filed: 02/05/2015

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 14-4769
___________
IN RE: KAI INGRAM,
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. 1-12-cv-01900)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
January 30, 2015
Before: FISHER, SHWARTZ and SLOVITER, Circuit Judges
(Filed: February 5, 2015)
_________
OPINION*
_________

PER CURIAM
Kai D. Ingram, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of mandamus
directing the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to reach
a decision on his habeas petition. For the reasons that follow, we will deny the
mandamus petition.

*

This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.

Case: 14-4769

Document: 003111868494

Page: 2

Date Filed: 02/05/2015

Ingram filed a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on September 24,
2012. On October 16, 2012, the District Court issued an order requiring the government
to file its response along with copies of necessary transcripts and briefs within twentyone days. After an extension of time was granted, the government submitted its response
on December 3, 2012. Ingram filed a traverse on January 17, 2013, also after an
extension of time was granted. The next document that appears on the docket is a notice
of change of address filed by Ingram on June 17, 2013. Ingram thereafter submitted
several letters to the District Court in August, October, and November 2013, making
procedural inquiries and requesting copies of the docket.
On December 17, 2013, the District Court issued an order again directing the
government to provide the District Court with necessary transcripts and briefs and to file
a supplemental brief specifically addressing and fully analyzing the issue of whether
Ingram had exhausted state law remedies. On December 30, 2013, Ingram filed a motion
requesting that the District Court reconsider its order, arguing that the government should
not be permitted to provide a supplemental response. On January 7, 2014, the
government filed a motion for an extension of time. On January 8, 2014, the District
Court denied Ingram’s motion and granted the government’s motion. The government
filed its supplemental response on January 29, 2014.
Ingram submitted several letters to the District Court in February and March 2014
objecting to the government’s response and requesting release on bail. After being
2

Case: 14-4769

Document: 003111868494

Page: 3

Date Filed: 02/05/2015

advised by the Clerk that the District Court was unable to take any action on the basis of
personal correspondence, on April 4, 2014, Ingram filed a motion requesting that the
District Court release him on bail prior to ruling on his habeas petition. The Magistrate
Judge denied Ingram’s motion on April 7, 2014. On June 19, 2014, Ingram filed a
renewed motion for bail, which the District Court denied on July 1, 2014. On December
18, 2014, Ingram petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus, requesting an order
compelling the District Court to act upon his § 2254 petition.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary cases, see In re Diet
Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005), as the petitioner must
demonstrate that he has “no other adequate means” to obtain the relief desired and a
“clear and indisputable” right to issuance of the writ. Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79
(3d Cir. 1996). Although a District Court has discretion over the management of its
docket, see In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817-18 (3d Cir. 1982), a
federal appellate court “may issue a writ of mandamus on the ground that [the District
Court’s] undue delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction.” Madden, 102
F.3d at 79.
We recognize that nearly one year has elapsed since the time the government filed
its supplemental response in January 2014. As in Madden, where we described a delay of
around half of that time in acting on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus as “of
concern,” 102 F.3d at 79, a delay of this length is troubling. However, the delay in this
3

Case: 14-4769

Document: 003111868494

Page: 4

Date Filed: 02/05/2015

case may have been caused, in part, by the filings submitted by Ingram, particularly the
two motions for bail Ingram filed in April and June 2014. Accordingly, we find that the
delay here does not warrant mandamus relief.
We are confident that the District Court will rule on Ingram’s pending § 2254
petition without undue delay. The petition for a writ of mandamus is therefore denied,
but without prejudice to Ingram’s filing a new petition for a writ of mandamus should the
District Court fail to act expeditiously in this matter.

4