Filed: Jun. 18, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-18-2007 In Re: Shawley Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-2352 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007 Recommended Citation "In Re: Shawley " (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 920. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/920 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United Sta
Summary: Opinions of the United 2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-18-2007 In Re: Shawley Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-2352 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007 Recommended Citation "In Re: Shawley " (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 920. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/920 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United Stat..
More
Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-18-2007
In Re: Shawley
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-2352
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"In Re: Shawley " (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 920.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/920
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 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
BLD-235 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No.. 07-2352
IN RE: STEVEN A. SHAWLEY,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On Petition for Writ of Prohibition or Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(Related to M.D. Pa. Civ. Nos. 04-cv-02187,
04-cv-02405, 06-cv-00784 and 06-cv-01070)
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
May 17, 2007
Before: MCKEE, FUENTES and WEIS, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: June 18, 2007)
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner Steven A. Shawley, a prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of
prohibition or mandamus compelling the District Court to stay all activity in four civil
actions. For the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition.
1
I.
Over the past thirteen years, Shawley has filed pro se numerous civil rights
actions in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. This
petition concerns four such actions, which have been assigned in the District Court civil
action numbers 04-cv-02187, 04-cv-02405, 06-cv-00784 and 06-cv-01070. In civil action
04-cv-02405, the District Court has entered judgment in favor of all defendants, and
Shawley has appealed therefrom at C.A. No. 06-4979. All of the other actions remain
pending, with the District Court having dismissed some, but not all, claims and parties.
In his petition, Shawley alleges that he was transferred from one prison to
another on January 2, 2007 without his (otherwise unspecified) legal materials, that he
has been unable to retrieve those materials, and that he is unable to prosecute his pending
cases without them. Shawley sought a stay on this basis in his three pending cases, but
the District Court denied his motions and granted certain dispositive motions as
unopposed after Shawley failed to respond to them.1 Shawley seeks a writ directing the
District Court to stay all proceedings in these actions pending “resolution of his legal
property” and also asks that his appellate rights “be held in abeyance.”2
1
Shawley previously had sought stays in two of these cases on at least five separate
occasions, for reasons including the effects of medication, delays in receiving mail, and
the type of pens that prison personnel had given him to use.
2
The remedy that Shawley seeks is properly characterized as a writ of prohibition
rather than a writ of mandamus, but “[t]he requirements for obtaining both writs are the
same.” United States v. Santtini, 963 F.2d 585, 594 (3d Cir. 1992).
2
II.
Insofar as Shawley’s petition concerns Civ. No. 04-cv-02405, it does not
present a justiciable controversy. The District Court has entered judgment and that
judgment is on appeal, so there are no proceedings in the District Court that we could
direct it to stay. Shawley’s request that we hold his appellate rights in abeyance
(assuming it is otherwise proper) is not ripe because it remains to be seen whether
Shawley can proceed with his appeal. Shawley sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis
in that appeal and submitted an “imminent danger” motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g),
which the Court is denying by separate order issued contemporaneously with this opinion.
As explained in that order, Shawley can proceed with the appeal only by paying the filing
fee in full, and it remains to be seen whether he can or will decide to do so. Thus, this
request is premature, and we will deny it without prejudice for Shawley to seek a stay of
the briefing schedule or such other relief in C.A. No. 06-4979 as might be appropriate if
and when a briefing schedule is issued in that appeal.
With respect to Shawley’s remaining civil actions, we will deny the petition
because he has not met the standard for issuance of a writ. Prohibition and mandamus are
extraordinary remedies that we have discretion to award only when a petitioner has a
“clear and indisputable” right to relief and “no other adequate means” to obtain it. In re
Pressman-Gutman Co., 459 F.3d 383, 398-99 (3d Cir. 2006);
Santtini, 963 F.2d at 594.
Shawley has demonstrated neither element here. First, he has not demonstrated an
indisputable right to a stay of all proceedings in the District Court. District Courts are
3
vested with discretion in managing their dockets. See In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig.,
685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982). In denying Shawley’s requests for a stay, the District
Court noted that the dispositive motions at issue had been pending for between four and
eight months before the prison transfer on which Shawley relies and that Shawley had not
alleged any reason why he could not have responded before the transfer.3 Shawley can
argue on appeal (see discussion below) that the District Court abused its discretion in
refusing a stay, an issue on which we express no opinion, but he has not demonstrated an
indisputable right to relief.
Second, Shawley has not shown that he has no other way of obtaining
relief. Shawley alleges that he has “no legal remedy other than this writ” for the
“irreparable injury” that the District Court inflicted on him by granting certain
defendants’ dispositive motions as unopposed. Shawley, however, has the usual remedy
for challenging such decisions – an appeal after final judgment. He alleges no reason
why that remedy would be ineffective to protect his rights. See Madden v. Myers, 102
F.3d 74, 77 (3d Cir. 1996) (“[A] petition for mandamus ‘must not be used as a mere
substitute for appeal.’”) (citation omitted). He alleges that the lack of legal materials
prevents him from bringing an appeal now, but even assuming that were true he has no
right to appeal now because the District Court has not entered final judgment as to all
3
See Shawley v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., No. 06-cv-01070, order at 4-5 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 26,
2007) (Docket No. 18); Shawley v. Luzerne County, No. 06-cv-00784, slip op. at 3-4
(M.D. Pa. March 2, 2007) (Docket No. 31); Shawley v. Luzerne County, No. 04-cv-
02187, slip op. at 2-3 (M.D. Pa. March 12, 2007) (Docket No. 108).
4
claims and all parties. See Andrews v. United States, 373 U.S. 334, 340 (1963). Nor
does he allege that he might lose any other right without immediate relief or that he might
otherwise be subject to irreparable harm. Finally, the District Court docket entries show
that there are no other dispositive motions pending. If Shawley’s asserted inability to
retrieve his legal materials persists, and if he believes that such inability will prevent him
from responding to future motions or otherwise prosecuting his claims, he knows how to
seek an injunction requiring the return of his materials in the District Court, which he has
not done. We express no opinion on whether he is entitled to such relief.
Accordingly, Shawley’s petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus will
be denied.
5
