Steven Johnson v.
678 F. App'x 60
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Steven A. Johnson filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition in the district court on January 29, 2016.
- The district court dismissed the petition in early February 2016; Johnson moved to amend, for an injunction, and for reconsideration.
- The court denied the amendment and injunction motions but on March 8, 2016 vacated its dismissal and ordered the Government to respond.
- The Government filed its response on March 24, 2016; Johnson filed a traverse in early April 2016.
- After the traverse, the district court had not ruled on the habeas petition for approximately ten months; Johnson sought a writ of mandamus from the Third Circuit to compel a ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus is warranted to compel the district court to rule on the § 2241 petition | Johnson argued the ten-month delay in ruling deprived him of timely relief and that mandamus is necessary because no adequate alternative exists | The Government argued the district court has exercised jurisdiction (dismissal, reopening, ordered briefing) and the delay does not amount to a failure to act requiring mandamus | Denied: delay not sufficiently extraordinary; district court has exercised jurisdiction and mandamus is not appropriate now |
| Whether Johnson lacks an adequate alternative remedy | Johnson contended he has no other means to obtain a timely decision | Government implicitly argued normal appellate process and continued district court control suffice | Held Johnson failed to show lack of adequate alternative; mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and not justified here |
| Whether the delay equates to a failure to exercise jurisdiction | Johnson claimed the delay is tantamount to jurisdictional failure warranting relief | Government noted prior court actions (dismissal, reopening, rulings on other motions) show jurisdiction was exercised | Court held delay did not indicate failure to exercise jurisdiction given prior district-court activity |
| Whether mandamus relief should be denied without prejudice to renewal | Johnson sought immediate issuance of writ | Government opposed immediate mandamus | Court denied mandamus but allowed Johnson to file again if district court fails to act timely |
Key Cases Cited
- Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394 (1976) (mandamus is an extraordinary remedy)
- Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74 (3d Cir. 1996) (requirements for mandamus; delay may justify relief when it amounts to failure to exercise jurisdiction)
- Lacey v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 932 F.2d 170 (3d Cir. 1991) (appellate court should not micro-manage district court docket)
- Hassine v. Zimmerman, 160 F.3d 941 (3d Cir. 1998) (district-court delay must be extraordinary to warrant mandamus relief)