Akeem Gumbs v.
671 F. App'x 35
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Petitioner Akeem R. Gumbs filed a sixth amended 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion (Oct 5, 2015) challenging his sentence, plus a motion for summary judgment (Oct 20, 2015) and a motion to dismiss count 6 of the indictment (Feb 16, 2016; amended June 2016).
- The District Court referred the § 2255 motion to a Magistrate Judge in May 2016; the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in October 2016 denying relief; Gumbs filed objections in November 2016.
- Gumbs petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 directing the District Court to rule on his § 2255 motion, summary judgment motion, and motion to dismiss.
- This is Gumbs’ third mandamus petition in the matter; the Third Circuit had denied his two prior petitions.
- The Third Circuit denied the mandamus petition, concluding Gumbs had not shown extraordinary circumstances, lacked a clear and indisputable right to the writ, and had other adequate processes available (the District Court was actively processing the case via the Magistrate Judge).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus is appropriate to compel District Court to enter judgment on pending motions | Gumbs: District Court has unreasonably delayed and should be ordered to rule on § 2255, summary judgment, and dismissal motions | Respondent: District Court is exercising docket control and proceeding appropriately (referral to Magistrate Judge, R&R issued) | Denied — mandamus not warranted; petitioner has no clear and indisputable right and has other adequate means |
| Whether delay in ruling is so undue as to constitute failure to exercise jurisdiction | Gumbs: Five-month pendency of dismissal motion and longer for other filings constitutes undue delay | Respondent: Five-month pendency is not undue; court retains discretion over docket management | Denied — delay not tantamount to failure to exercise jurisdiction |
| Whether prior denials affect availability of mandamus relief | Gumbs: Prior petitions were denied but circumstances require relief now | Respondent: No material change; District Court’s referral to Magistrate shows active processing | Denied — prior denials and active proceedings weigh against extraordinary relief |
| Whether magistrate referral and R&R preclude mandamus | Gumbs: Still seeks immediate district-court final judgment despite R&R process | Respondent: Referral and R&R demonstrate proper use of procedural mechanisms and ongoing disposition | Denied — magistrate process indicates the court is resolving the matters within its discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Pasquariello, 16 F.3d 525 (3d Cir. 1994) (mandamus is an extraordinary remedy)
- Haines v. Liggett Grp. Inc., 975 F.2d 81 (3d Cir. 1992) (standards for mandamus: no other adequate means and clear, indisputable right)
- Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U.S. 394 (U.S. 1976) (mandamus standard and functions reaffirmed)
- In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810 (3d Cir. 1982) (district courts retain discretion to control docket)
- Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74 (3d Cir. 1996) (delay must be undue to constitute failure to exercise jurisdiction)