Simeon Bozic v.
699 F. App'x 137
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Simeon Bozic, serving life without parole, filed a §2254 habeas petition in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania challenging his convictions and sentence.
- The District Court referred the matter to a Magistrate Judge, who ordered the government to answer within 45 days.
- Bozic filed a memorandum in support on June 30, 2017, then moved for summary judgment on August 11, 2017, alleging the government had failed to timely answer.
- The government sought extensions of time to answer; the Magistrate Judge set and later extended response deadlines (including to September 29, 2017, and later to December 28, 2017).
- Bozic sought a writ of mandamus from the Third Circuit asking the court to set aside the District Court’s extension order and to grant his summary-judgment motion.
- The Third Circuit denied mandamus, finding mandamus inappropriate because Bozic had adequate alternative remedies and the District Court’s docket-control decisions were within its discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of mandamus | Mandamus is warranted to overturn the District Court’s extension and compel immediate ruling/grant of summary judgment | Mandamus is extraordinary; not appropriate because normal appellate remedies remain | Denied — mandamus not appropriate; petitioner has other adequate remedies |
| Timeliness of government answer | Government’s late answer justifies summary judgment for Bozic | Extensions requested and granted; not a jurisdictional failure | Denied — delay did not amount to failure to exercise jurisdiction |
| District court docket control | Court should rule on motion before government answers | District court has discretion to manage schedule and set deadlines | Denied — docket control lies with District Court; discretionary |
| Adequacy of other remedies | Immediate mandamus required because appeals insufficient | Bozic can appeal adverse rulings after final decision | Denied — appellate review is an adequate alternative |
Key Cases Cited
- Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394 (1976) (mandamus is an extraordinary remedy reserved for extraordinary situations)
- Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74 (3d Cir. 1996) (petitioner must show no other adequate means and a clear, indisputable right to mandamus)
- In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810 (3d Cir. 1982) (docket-control and scheduling decisions are within district court discretion)