In re: Timothy Baukman v.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Decided: July 28, 2025
• Docket: 25-1956
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

HLD-017 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 25-1956 ___________

IN RE: TIMOTHY BAUKMAN, Petitioner ____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Related to Criminal No. 2:05-cr-00440-008) ____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. July 24, 2025 Before: Chief Judge CHAGARES, HARDIMAN, and PORTER, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: July 28, 2025) _________

OPINION * _________

PER CURIAM

Timothy Baukman has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. For the reasons

that follow, we will deny the petition.

In 2010, Baukman was sentenced to 360 months in prison after being convicted of

drug trafficking and money laundering charges. We affirmed his convictions and

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. sentence on appeal. See United States v. Coles, 558 F. App’x 173, 188-89 (3d Cir.

2014).

In June 2023, Baukman filed a pro se document in the District Court. The

document was titled “Memorandum” and was docketed as such. In the document,

Bauman requested that the District Court delete paragraph #38 from his Presentence

Investigation Report (PSR) pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. In May 2025, Baukman filed

this petition for mandamus requesting that we order the District Court to act on his filing.

Two weeks later, the Government filed a response to his filing, which it construed as a

Rule 36 motion, in the District Court. The Government explained that it had not

responded to the motion earlier because at the time he filed the document, Baukman was

represented by counsel on a motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and it believed he

was not entitled to hybrid representation.

The writ of mandamus will issue only in extraordinary circumstances. See Sporck

v. Peil, 759 F.2d 312, 314 (3d Cir. 1985). As a precondition to the issuance of the writ,

Baukman must establish that there is no alternative remedy or other adequate means to

obtain the desired relief and must demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to the relief

sought. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976). As a general rule, the manner

in which a court disposes of cases on its docket is within its discretion. See In re Fine

Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982). Nonetheless, mandamus may be

warranted where a District Court’s “undue delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise

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

2 While there has been delay in the District Court proceedings with respect to this

motion, the Government has now filed its response, and we are confident that the District

Court will adjudicate the motion within an appropriate time.

For the above reasons, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus without

prejudice to refiling if the District Court does not decide the motion within 60 days.