In Re: Joseph Farmer

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: RESTREPO, BIBAS and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 3. BLD-169

Case: 18-1130

Document: 003112897930

Page: 1

BLD-169

Date Filed: 04/09/2018

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 18-1130
___________
IN RE: JOSEPH FARMER,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
District Court Judge: Renee M. Bumb
(Related to 1-16-cv-08657)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
April 5, 2018
Before: RESTREPO, BIBAS and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: April 9, 2018)
_________
OPINION *
_________

PER CURIAM
Federal prisoner Joseph Farmer, proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of mandamus in
connection with a habeas petition he filed in the United States District Court for the

*

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

Case: 18-1130

Document: 003112897930

Page: 2

Date Filed: 04/09/2018

District of New Jersey. For the reasons that follow, we will deny Farmer’s mandamus
petition.
In November 2016, Farmer filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the
District Court, attacking the calculation of his jail credit upon parole revocation, and
seeking immediate release. Earlier this year, Farmer filed this mandamus petition, asking
that we direct the District Court to rule on his § 2241 petition. A few days later, the
District Court issued an order and opinion on Farmer’s § 2241 petition, denying some of
his claims but requesting supplemental briefing on the remaining claims. Farmer has
filed a notice of appeal, and the resulting appeal is pending before our Court. 1 See C.A.
No. 18-1330.
A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy that is available in extraordinary
circumstances only. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir.
2005). To obtain the writ, a petitioner must show that “(1) no other adequate means
[exist] to attain the relief he desires, (2) the party’s right to issuance of the writ is clear
and indisputable, and (3) the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.”
Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam) (alteration in original)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Generally, a court’s management of its docket is
discretionary, see In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982), and

1

That appeal has been listed by the Clerk for possible dismissal due to a jurisdictional
defect. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We do not consider that question here.
2

Case: 18-1130

Document: 003112897930

Page: 3

Date Filed: 04/09/2018

there is no “clear and indisputable” right to have a District Court handle a case in a
particular manner. See Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 36 (1980) (per
curiam). That said, a writ of mandamus may issue where a district court’s “undue delay
is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction.” Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79
(3d Cir. 1996).
Farmer has not made the requisite showing. Since the filing of his mandamus
petition, the District Court has addressed Farmer’s § 2241 petition and requested
supplemental briefs. Given this recent activity, we cannot say that there has been a
persistent delay “tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction.” Madden, 102 F.3d at
79.
Accordingly, we will deny Farmer’s mandamus petition.

3