in Re: Wayne Charles v. Liggett Group, Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 89 3d Cir. 1992 citing Kerr v. United States…

HPS-79 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_______________
NO. 05-2096
________________
IN RE: WAYNE CHARLES,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
District Court for the Virgin Islands
(Related to D.V.I. Civ. No. 00-cv-00072)
____________________________________
Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
April 29, 2005
Before: CHIEF JUDGE SCIRICA, WEIS and GARTH, CIRCUIT JUDGES.
(Filed: August 4, 2005)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM.
Pro se petitioner Wayne Charles seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the
District Court for the Virgin Islands to act in the proceedings on his motion filed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Charles filed his motion on June 7, 2000; he later
amended the motion on April 22, 2003, and he also filed motions for summary judgment.
Mandamus is an appropriate remedy only in the most extraordinary of
situations. In re Pasquariello, 16 F.3d 525, 528 (3d Cir. 1994). To justify such a

-- 1 of 2 --

To the extent that Charles asks this Court to grant substantive relief with respect1
to his section 2255 motion, we conclude that his contentions may be asserted in an appeal.
See In re Chambers Dev. Co., 148 F.3d 214, 223 (3d Cir. 1998) (mandamus is not an
alternative to an appeal).
2
remedy, a petitioner must show that he has (I) no other adequate means of obtaining the
desired relief and (ii) a “clear and indisputable” right to issuance of the writ. See Haines
v. Liggett Group, Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 89 (3d Cir. 1992) (citing Kerr v. United States
District Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976)). It is well-settled that the manner in which a
district court disposes of the cases on its docket is committed to its sound discretion. In
re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation, 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982). Some delays,
however, are so intolerable as to warrant appellate intervention. See Madden v. Myers,
102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996).1
Charles’s action in District Court was pending at the time he filed this
mandamus petition in April 2005. However, the District Court denied Charles’s section
2255 motion and other pending motions by memorandum opinion and order entered July
28, 2005. Thus, the matter before us is now moot.
Accordingly, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.

-- 2 of 2 --