DLD-252                                                        NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 ___________

                                      No. 11-2781
                                      ___________

                            In re: SOHAIL CHAUDHRY,
                                                    Petitioner
                      ____________________________________

                      On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
                       United States District Court of New Jersey
                       (Related to D.N.J. Civ. No. 10-cv-03119)
                      ____________________________________

                     Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
                                    July 28, 2011

          Before: FISHER, BARRY and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges.

                                (Filed: August 9, 2011 )
                                       _________

                                       OPINION
                                       _________

PER CURIAM

      Sohail Chaudhry filed this pro se mandamus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1651, seeking an order that the United States District Court of New Jersey be

compelled to rule on his pending § 2255 motion. For the reasons that follow, we will

deny the mandamus petition without prejudice.

      Mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in the most extraordinary of

circumstances. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 

, 378 (3d Cir.
2005). A mandamus petitioner must establish that he has “no other adequate means” to

obtain the requested relief, and that he has a “clear and indisputable” right to issuance of

the writ. Madden v. Myers, 

, 79 (3d Cir. 1996).

       As a general rule, the manner in which a court disposes of cases on its docket is

within its discretion. See In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 

, 817 (3d Cir.

1982). Indeed, given the discretionary nature of docket management, there can be no

“clear and indisputable” right to have the district court handle a case on its docket in a

certain manner. See Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 

, 36 (1980).

Nonetheless, mandamus may be warranted where a district court’s delay “is tantamount

to a failure to exercise jurisdiction.” See 

.

       This case, however, does not present such a situation. Chaudhry filed his § 2255

motion in June 2010. Through April 2011, the District Court has routinely exercised

jurisdiction by ruling on various procedural motions filed by Chaudhry. The complained-

of three-month delay in the disposition of Chaudhry’s § 2255 motion “does not yet rise to

the level of a denial of due process.” 

will deny Chaudhry’s mandamus petition without prejudice.




                                              2