Caleb McGillvary v.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Decided: September 5, 2023
• Docket: 23-2188
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

BLD-203 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 23-2188 ___________

IN RE: CALEB L. MCGILLVARY, Petitioner ____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Related to D.N.J. Civ. No. 1:22-cv-04185) ____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. August 24, 2023 Before: KRAUSE, PORTER, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed September 5, 2023) _________

OPINION* _________

PER CURIAM

Caleb McGillvary, proceeding pro se, petitions for a writ of mandamus. For the

following reasons, we will dismiss in part and deny in part the petition.

McGillvary has a pending habeas action in the United States District Court for the

District of New Jersey. See McGillvary v. Att’y Gen. of N.J., et al., D.C. Civ. No. 1:22-

cv-01485. The Government filed its response to the petition in March 2023, and

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. McGillvary moved for summary judgment in May 2023. The Clerk then entered an order

that McGillvary’s motion would be decided “on the papers,” and McGillvary filed this

mandamus petition to compel the District Court to adjudicate the motion on the merits.

In August 2023, the District Court denied the motion as improperly filed in a habeas case

and stated that it will rule on McGillvary’s habeas petition in due course.

To the extent McGillvary requests that we compel the District Court to rule on his

motion for summary judgment, his petition no longer presents a live controversy because

the District Court has since ruled. Therefore, we will dismiss it as moot in part. See

Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996) (“If

developments occur during the course of adjudication that eliminate a plaintiff's personal

stake in the outcome of a suit or prevent a court from being able to grant the requested

relief, the case must be dismissed as moot.”).

To the extent McGillvary requests that we direct the District Court to consider the

merits of his motion for summary judgment, we will deny that request. A writ of

mandamus is an extreme remedy that is invoked only in extraordinary situations. See

Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). To justify the use of this

extraordinary remedy, a petitioner must demonstrate that he has “no other adequate

means to obtain [that] relief,” and that “the right to issuance [of the writ] is clear and

indisputable.” Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996).

McGillvary has an adequate means of relief. In August 2023, the District Court

stated that it will proceed with the merits of McGillvary’s petition in due course. If the

District Court denies his petition, he may appeal the District Court’s orders. As to

2 McGillvary’s general assertions that the District Court has failed to exercise jurisdiction

over his habeas petition, that argument lacks merit. Matters of docket control are

generally within the discretion of the District Court, In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685

F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982), and the District Court’s August 2023 order demonstrates it

is moving forward with the case. We are confident that it will adjudicate his pending

§ 2254 motion in a timely manner.

Accordingly, we will dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for a writ of

mandamus.1

1 McGillvary’s motion for summary action is denied. C.A. Dkt. No. 10.