in Re: Willie Shuman v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 3d Cir. 1996 . Here, Shuman has failed to show that he has a…

1
HLD-092 (February 2010) NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 10-1146
___________
IN RE: WILLIE SHUMAN,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Related to D.C. Civil No. 09-cv-02490)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
February 25, 2010
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed : March 5, 2010)
___________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM
Willie Shuman filed this pro se petition for a writ of mandamus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1651 seeking an order compelling the District Court to act upon his motion
for a default judgment. For the reason that follows, we will deny the petition.
In May 2009, Shuman filed a prisoner civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
§ 1983 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. On July 28,
2009, the District Court ordered the defendant to file a responsive pleading within the
time specified by Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In a brief document
dated that same day (July 28, 2009), Shuman asked the court to withdraw his complaint
because it was “taking too long for this court to protect my rights.” The District Court
granted Shuman’s request on August 10, 2009 and dismissed the case.
Despite the fact that his case had been dismissed, Shuman wrote to the court
in November 2009 requesting that a default judgment be entered against the defendant
because he had failed to file a timely responsive pleading. In January 2010, Shuman filed
this mandamus petition seeking to have this Court order the District Court to enter a
default judgment. About a week later, Shuman filed a motion asking the District Court to
reopen his case.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in the most extraordinary of
circumstances. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir.
2005). To demonstrate that mandamus is appropriate, a petitioner must establish that he
has a “clear and indisputable” right to the issuance of the writ and that he has “no other
adequate means” to obtain the relief desired. Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir.
1996). Here, Shuman has failed to show that he has a “clear and indisputable” right to
entry of default judgment for the simple fact that there is no matter pending in which to
enter such a judgment. His case was dismissed months ago – at his request. Accordingly,

-- 2 of 3 --

3
we will deny Shuman’s petition for a writ of mandamus.

-- 3 of 3 --