In Re United States Ex Rel. Drummond
886 F.3d 448
| 5th Cir. | 2018Background
- Relator Richard Drummond filed a False Claims Act suit that has been pending in the Southern District of Texas for over nine years before Judge Lynn N. Hughes.
- Drummond sought a writ of mandamus from the Fifth Circuit (filed Oct. 3, 2017) to compel the district court to decide three long-pending summary judgment motions (Dkts. ## 96, 102, 160).
- The district court resolved only the most recent motion (Dkt. #160) in an order issued Dec. 28, 2017; the two earlier motions (Dkts. ## 96, 102) remained undecided.
- The Fifth Circuit requested a response from Judge Hughes; none was filed with the Fifth Circuit, though a district-court docket entry indicated the case would end soon.
- The parties represented to the Fifth Circuit that the petition was not moot because two motions remained unresolved; no further district-court action occurred after the December order.
- The Fifth Circuit concluded the delay was inexcusable and granted mandamus, ordering Judge Hughes to decide the two pending summary judgment motions within 30 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus is warranted to compel the district court to rule on long-pending motions | Drummond argued the court’s multi-year delay and four-year pendency of two motions deprived him of relief and left no adequate alternative | District court had docket-management discretion and the case was complex; impliedly opposed intervention | Mandamus granted: requirements met (no other adequate means, clear right, appropriate relief); judge ordered to rule within 30 days |
| Whether the petition was rendered moot by the district court’s December 28 order | Drummond: not moot because two motions remained undecided | District court’s December order resolved at least one motion, but did not resolve the others | Not moot; petition remained live because two motions were still pending |
| Whether appellate courts may use mandamus to remedy undue delay | Drummond relied on precedent that undue delay can be tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction | District court discretion acknowledged but argued to have limits | Court held appellate mandamus is appropriate when persistent, unreasonable delay occurs |
| Appropriateness of timeframe for relief | Drummond requested prompt adjudication | District court control over scheduling but delay excessive | Court ordered adjudication of the two motions within 30 days |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Denson, 603 F.2d 1143 (5th Cir. 1979) (mandamus is an extraordinary remedy)
- In re Dean, 527 F.3d 391 (5th Cir. 2008) (mandamus standards articulated)
- In re United States, 397 F.3d 274 (5th Cir. 2005) (mandamus standard discussion)
- Sims v. ANR Freight Sys., Inc., 77 F.3d 846 (5th Cir. 1996) (district court has broad docket-management discretion)
- Will v. Calvert Fire Ins. Co., 437 U.S. 655 (1978) (appellate courts may issue writs where district courts persistently refuse to adjudicate)
- Johnson v. Rogers, 917 F.2d 1283 (10th Cir. 1990) (mandamus appropriate for undue delay in habeas proceedings)
- Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74 (3d Cir. 1996) (undue delay tantamount to failure to exercise jurisdiction)
- McClellan v. Young, 421 F.2d 690 (6th Cir. 1970) (mandamus to address delay in ruling on habeas petition)