IN RE: Virgil RIVERS (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.2021-09-15No. No. 21-2332

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus because Rivers failed to demonstrate undue delay tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction; the District Court had taken actionable steps on the habeas petition and four months without a ruling following the most recent order did not constitute extraordinary circumstances warranting mandamus.

Virgil Rivers, an inmate convicted in 2004 of bank robbery-related offenses, filed a mandamus petition seeking to compel the District Court to rule on his habeas corpus petition. Rivers had filed his habeas petition in August 2020, and although the District Court ordered the government to respond and subsequently denied his motion for counsel, he complained of delay in receiving a final ruling on his underlying claims. The court explained that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only when a petitioner has no other adequate remedy and can demonstrate an unambiguous right to relief. The court found that the District Court had taken meaningful action on Rivers's case, including issuing orders and ruling on motions, and that the passage of time did not constitute the kind of abandonment or failure to exercise jurisdiction that would warrant mandamus intervention.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Standards for obtaining a writ of mandamus
Whether delay in ruling on a habeas petition constitutes failure to exercise jurisdiction
District court discretion in managing dockets

Procedural posture

A pro se inmate filed a mandamus petition in the appellate court seeking to compel the District Court to rule on a pending habeas corpus petition.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

OPINION *

Petitioner Virgil Rivers, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus requesting that we direct the District Court to act on his habeas petition. In 2004, Rivers was convicted by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York of conspiracy to commit bank robbery, bank robbery, and unlawful use of a firearm. In August 2020, Rivers filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

The District Court ordered the United States Attorney to respond, and it did so in October 2020. Since that time, Rivers has submitted several filings, including a motion for appointment of counsel that the District Court denied in April 2021. Most recently, Rivers filed a “Petition for Supplemental to Writ of Habeas Corpus” in May 2021 and moved for an evidentiary hearing in June 2021. He filed this mandamus petition in July 2021.

A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary circumstances. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). A petitioner seeking the writ “must have no other adequate means to obtain the desired relief, and must show that the right to issuance is clear and indisputable.” Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996). Although we accord district courts discretion in managing their dockets, see In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982), we may issue a writ of mandamus where there is “undue delay” that is “tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction.” Madden, 102 F.3d at 79.

We discern no such failure to exercise jurisdiction here. The District Court has ordered the U.S. Attorney to answer the petition, and it has; the Court also has denied Riverss motion for appointment of counsel. While a year has passed since Rivers originally filed the petition under section 2241, the District Court has taken action in the matter, with its latest order entered in April 2021. We cannot say that the passage of four months since that time qualifies as an “undue delay,” nor is the District Courts failure to fully adjudicate the petition within a year—particularly when Rivers has sought to supplement his petition as recently as May 2021—tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction. See id. We are confident that the District Court will rule on the habeas petition in a timely manner.

For these reasons, we will deny the petition. The motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

FOOTNOTES

. At the time, Rivers was housed at the FCI Allenwood facility in Pennsylvania. He remains incarcerated there.

PER CURIAM