In re: In Re: Christian Womack



Download PDF
Case: 17-1853 Document: 003112624242 Page: 1 CLD-231 Date Filed: 05/16/2017 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 17-1853 ___________ IN RE: CHRISTIAN DIOR WOMACK, Petitioner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. Crim. No. 2:13-cr-00206-001) ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. May 11, 2017 Before: SHWARTZ, NYGAARD and FISHER, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: May 16, 2017) _________ OPINION * _________ PER CURIAM Christian Dior Womack, a.k.a. Gucci Prada, pleaded guilty to charges of sex trafficking of a minor and sex trafficking by force. We affirmed his judgment of sentence. United States v. Womack, 646 F. App’x 258, 259 (3d Cir. 2016). Also, we have denied several mandamus petitions that he has filed. See, e.g., In re Womack, 639 F. App’x 70 (3d Cir. 2016) (per curiam). More than once, he has presented claims about * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Case: 17-1853 Document: 003112624242 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/16/2017 what he perceives as improprieties in the counsel appointment process in his criminal case. In September 2016, in the District Court criminal case, Womack presented a variation of his argument about the appointment of his counsel in a document that he entitled “petition for ancillary hearing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).” In March, he filed a motion for the District Court to issue a scheduling order relating to his “petition for an ancillary hearing . . .” under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Both applications remain pending. Womack now presents a petition for a writ of mandamus, complaining of the District Court’s delay in ruling on his filings and requesting that we order the District Court to rule. We will deny the petition because mandamus relief is not warranted. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. See Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). A petitioner must ordinarily have no other means to obtain the desired relief, and he must show a clear and indisputable right to issuance of the writ. In re Sch. Asbestos Litig., 977 F.2d 764, 772 (3d Cir. 1992). An appellate court may issue a writ of mandamus when an undue delay in adjudication is “tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction.” Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996). However, as a general rule, “matters of docket control” are within the discretion of the District Court. In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982). Although there has been some delay in ruling on Womack’s new applications for relief in the District Court, under the circumstances of the case, we are not concerned by it. We do not believe that the delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction. 2 Case: 17-1853 Document: 003112624242 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/16/2017 And we are sure that the District Court will rule on Womack’s applications soon. For these reasons, we will deny Womack’s mandamus petition. 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?