Filed: Feb. 22, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2-22-2008 In Re: Alton Brown Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-1039 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008 Recommended Citation "In Re: Alton Brown " (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1539. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1539 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the
Summary: Opinions of the United 2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2-22-2008 In Re: Alton Brown Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-1039 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008 Recommended Citation "In Re: Alton Brown " (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1539. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1539 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the U..
More
Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
2-22-2008
In Re: Alton Brown
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 08-1039
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"In Re: Alton Brown " (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1539.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1539
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
HLD-59 (January 2008) NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 08-1039
________________
IN RE: ALTON D. BROWN,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Related to E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 07-cv-04675)
_____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
January 30, 2008
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, ALDISERT and GARTH, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: February 22, 2008)
_________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_________
PER CURIAM.
Alton Brown, an inmate incarcerated at a correctional facility in Graterford,
Pennsylvania, alleges that he filed a complaint for relief from inadequate and unsanitary
meals in the District Court on November 1, 2007, together with a motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, a motion requesting a temporary restraining order and a
preliminary injunction. His motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis was docketed
in the District Court on November 7, 2007. Brown now petitions this Court for a writ of
mandamus ordering that the District Court act on his pending motions.
Mandamus is an appropriate remedy in extraordinary circumstances only. See In re
Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig.,
418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). To prevail, the petitioner
must establish that he has “no other adequate means” to obtain relief, and that he has a “clear
and indisputable” right to issuance of the writ.
Id. at 378-79. A federal appellate court may
issue a writ of mandamus on the grounds that undue delay is tantamount to a failure to
exercise jurisdiction, Madden v. Myers,
102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996); however, the manner
in which a district court controls its docket is discretionary. In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig.,
685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982).
Brown has demonstrated neither that he has no other adequate means for relief, nor
that his right to the writ is clear and indisputable. Brown’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis has been pending in the District Court for a mere two months; his motions for a
temporary restraining order and for a preliminary injunction have been pending for three
months. We are confident that the District Court will timely take action in this case.
Accordingly, we will deny the petition.
2