in Re: Yaw Amponsah v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644 3d Cir. 1999 . On April 24, 2008, the District Court directed…

HLD-148 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-3142
___________
IN RE: YAW AMPONSAH,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus
from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(Related to Civ. No. 08-00114)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
August 29, 2008
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, ALDISERT and GARTH Circuit Judges.
(Filed: September 17, 2008)
_________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_________
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner Yaw Amponsah, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this
mandamus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651, seeking an order directing the U.S.
District Court for District of New Jersey to rule on his motion to vacate, set aside or
correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. For the foregoing reasons, we will deny the
petition.

-- 1 of 3 --

To the extent that Amponsah takes issue with the government’s answer having been1
filed outside the 45 days ordered by the District Court, we note that the District Court has
discretion over the management of its docket, In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d
810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982), and that the District Court has the discretion to decide what, if
any, significance to afford the government’s minor delay in responding.
2
Amponsah filed a motion under § 2255 on January 9, 2008, in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey. The District Court subsequently advised
Amponsah of his rights under United States v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644 (3d Cir. 1999). On
April 24, 2008, the District Court directed the government to respond to Amponsah’s
motion within 45 days. The District Court also instructed Amponsah not to file any
additional motions or papers other than a reply to the government’s answer. On July 3,
2008, counsel for the government entered an appearance and filed an answer.
On July 10, 2008, apparently having not yet received the government’s answer,
Amponsah filed this petition seeking an order directing the District Court to hear and
decide his motion in light of the government’s failure to respond within 45 days. As the
government has responded to Amponsah’s motion, and the proceedings in the District
Court continue apace, Amponsah’s concern has been addressed.1
Amponsah also requests that his § 2255 motion be assigned to a different judge
based on the District Judge’s purported lack of impartiality, or the appearance thereof. As
Ampsonah has not filed a motion requesting the District Judge’s recusal, he has not
demonstrated that his right to mandamus is “clear and indisputable.” Allied Chem. Corp.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980) (quoting Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 346
U.S. 379, 384 (1953) (quoting United States v. Duell, 172 U.S. 576, 582 (1899))).
Accordingly, we will deny Amponsah’s mandamus petition.

-- 3 of 3 --