In re: Christian Womack

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: JORDAN, SHWARTZ and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 3. DLD-172

Case: 18-1493

Document: 003112900019

Page: 1

DLD-172

Date Filed: 04/11/2018

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 18-1493
___________
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.
April 5, 2018
Before: JORDAN, SHWARTZ, and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: April 11, 2018)
___________
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.

*

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

Case: 18-1493

Document: 003112900019

Page: 2

Date Filed: 04/11/2018

App’x 70 (3d Cir. 2016) (per curiam), and the District Court has denied several motions
and petitions filed in the criminal case, see, e.g., District Court Order of July 13, 2017
(denying eight pro se filings).
On July 17, 2017, Womack filed a pro se motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
The next month, the District Court ordered the Clerk to send Womack the proper forms
for his motion and directed Womack to return them within 30 days. The District Court
received Womack’s § 2255 motion on the proper forms (and an attached lengthy
memorandum) on September 11, 2017. In October, Womack submitted a supplement to
his § 2255 motion. In January, Womack filed a motion to compel the Government to
respond to his § 2255 motion.
Womack now presents a petition for a writ of mandamus, complaining of the
District Court’s delay in ruling on his § 2255 motion 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 adequate 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), superseded in
part on other grounds by 3d Cir. L.A.R. 24.1(c) (1997). However, as a general rule,

2

Case: 18-1493

Document: 003112900019

Page: 3

Date Filed: 04/11/2018

“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).
Under the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, a district judge who
receives a § 2255 motion “must promptly examine it,” and either dismiss it or order the
United States attorney to file a response. See U.S.C. § 2255 Proc. R. 4. Womack filed
his § 2255 motion on the proper forms approximately six months before he filed his
mandamus petition. (He filed his petition about five months after he filed his
supplement.) The delay does concern us; however, at this point, we do not believe that
the delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction. Compare Madden, 102 F.3d
at 79 (stating that a five-month delay from the date the habeas petition was filed, and a
three-month delay from the most recent motion filed, was a matter “of concern,” though
not yet a denial of due process), with Johnson v. Rogers, 917 F.2d 1283, 1285 (10th Cir.
1990) (holding that after a delay of fourteen months due only to docket congestion,
“petitioner has established a clear and indisputable right to have his petition expeditiously
heard and decided, and [] has no alternative remedy”). As it appears that post-judgment
motions that were pending in this matter have been resolved, we expect that the District
Court will consider Womack’s pending § 2255 motion without undue delay.
Accordingly, we will deny Womack’s mandamus, but without prejudice to Womack’s
filing a new petition for a writ of mandamus should the District Court fail to act
expeditiously in this matter.

3