[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
46 views3 pages

Mandamus Denied for Blackett's § 2255 Motion

This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit regarding a petition for a writ of mandamus. The petitioner, Ikim Elijah Blackett, filed a § 2255 motion in November 2012 challenging his criminal conviction and sentence, which has been pending in the District Court of the Virgin Islands since December 2012 when the government responded. Blackett has filed additional motions seeking a ruling, with the most recent in April 2013. While district court management of its docket is generally discretionary, a writ of mandamus may be warranted if a delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction. However, the Third Circuit denies the petition here, expressing confidence that the district court will rule on the

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
46 views3 pages

Mandamus Denied for Blackett's § 2255 Motion

This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit regarding a petition for a writ of mandamus. The petitioner, Ikim Elijah Blackett, filed a § 2255 motion in November 2012 challenging his criminal conviction and sentence, which has been pending in the District Court of the Virgin Islands since December 2012 when the government responded. Blackett has filed additional motions seeking a ruling, with the most recent in April 2013. While district court management of its docket is generally discretionary, a writ of mandamus may be warranted if a delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction. However, the Third Circuit denies the petition here, expressing confidence that the district court will rule on the

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

CLD-365

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 13-2544
___________
In re: IKIM ELIJAH BLACKETT,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
District Court of the Virgin Islands
(Related to D.V.I. Crim. No. 3-10-cr-00028-001)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
August 1, 2013
Before: RENDELL, JORDAN and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: August 27, 2013 )
_________
OPINION
_________

PER CURIAM
Ikim Elijah Blackett, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, petitions for a writ
of mandamus compelling the District Court of the Virgin Islands to rule on his 28 U.S.C.
2255 motion to vacate his sentence and his other pending motions.
Following a jury trial in July 2010, Blackett was convicted of bribing a juror in
violation of 18 U.S.C. 201(b)(1)(A). In February 2011, Blackett was sentenced to 36

months of imprisonment, to be followed by two years of supervised release.1 Blackett


appealed, and in May 2012, we affirmed the judgment and conviction. See United States
v. Blackett, 481 F. Appx 741 (3d Cir. 2012). On November 13, 2012, Blackett filed in
the District Court a 2255 motion. The Government filed a response to Blacketts
2255 motion on December 14, 2012. Blackett then filed several documents in the
District Court in February, March, and April 2013. For example, on March 5, 2013,
Blackett filed a motion for default judgment, which the Government responded to on
March 13, 2013. Blacketts most recent filing, on April 12, 2013, sought a ruling on his
pending motions. There has been no activity on the District Courts docket since then.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy available in extraordinary circumstances only. In
re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). A petitioner seeking
the writ must have no other adequate means to obtain the desired relief, and must show
that the right to issuance is clear and indisputable. Madden v. Meyers, 102 F.3d 74, 79
(3d Cir. 1996) superseded in part on other grounds by 3d Cir. L.A.R. 24.1(c) (1997).
Generally, a courts management of its docket is discretionary. In re Fine Paper Antitrust
Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 2005). Due to the discretionary nature of docket
management, there is no clear and indisputable right to have the District Court handle a
case in a certain manner. See Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 36
(1980) (quoting Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 384 (1953)) (internal
quotation marks omitted). However, mandamus may be warranted when a District

According to Blackett, his sentence of imprisonment will be completed on October 26,


2013.
2

Courts delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction. Madden, 102 F.3d at


79.
In this case, Blacketts 2255 motion has been ripe for adjudication since
December 2012. We are confident that the District Court will rule on the 2255 motion
without undue delay. For the foregoing reasons, we will deny the petition for a writ of
mandamus.

You might also like