in Re: Alton D. Brown v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 3d Cir. 1996

HLD-59 (January 2008) NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

-- 1 of 2 --

2
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 of 2 --