Home/Third Circuit/Raymond Winchester v.

Raymond Winchester v.

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·Decided June 15, 2020·No. 20-2074·Unpublished

Opinion

DLD-201 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 20-2074 ___________

IN RE: RAYMOND WINCHESTER, Petitioner ____________________________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Related to D. Del. Civ. No. 1:18-cv-01458) ____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 21 June 4, 2020 Before: RESTREPO, PORTER and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: June 15, 2020) _________

OPINION* _________

Pro se petitioner Raymond Winchester seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the

District Court to rule on a petition he filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons

that follow, we will deny the petition.

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. In September 2018, Winchester filed a habeas petition in the District Court. He

subsequently filed a mandamus petition in this Court alleging that the District Court had

delayed ruling on his habeas petition and had not responded to certain filings. Because

his case was proceeding steadily, we denied Winchester’s request for mandamus relief in

August 2019. The District Court then ordered respondents to respond to Winchester’s

habeas petition, which they did on January 30, 2020, after being granted an extension.

On May 22, 2020, this Court received a series of documents from Winchester that have

been construed as a petition for a writ of mandamus. The documents appear to re-allege

that the District Court has delayed ruling on Winchester’s habeas petition.

A writ of mandamus is a “drastic remedy” that may be granted only in

“extraordinary circumstances in response to an act amounting to a judicial usurpation of

power.” In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005) (citation

omitted). “[M]atters of docket control . . . are committed to the sound discretion of the

district court.” In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982)

(citation omitted). However, a writ of mandamus may be warranted where a district

court’s “undue delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction.” See Madden v.

Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996).

Because proceedings in the District Court are moving forward and only four

months have passed since respondents filed their response to Winchester’s habeas

petition, the extraordinary remedy of mandamus relief is not warranted at this time. We

2 continue to have full confidence that the District Court will rule on Winchester’s petition

without undue delay.

Accordingly, we will deny Winchester’s mandamus petition.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Raymond Winchester v., (3d Cir. 2020).

Raymond Winchester v. (Raymond Winchester v.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation. (Ten Cases) the State of Alaska, on Its Own Behalf and on Behalf of Its Cities, Boroughs, and Other Political Subdivisions v. Boise Cascade Corporation, a Delaware Corporation Champion International Corporation, a New York Corporation Crown Zellerbach Corporation, a Nevada Corporation Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation, a Maine Corporation Hammermill Paper Company, a Pennsylvania Corporation International Paper Company, a New York Corporation Kimberly Clark Corporation, a Delaware Corporation the Mead Corporation, an Ohio Corporation Potlatch Corporation, a Delaware Corporation Scott Paper Company, a Pennsylvania Corporation St. Regis Paper Company, a New York Corporation Union Camp Corporation, a Virginia Corporation Wausau Paper Mills Co., a Wisconsin Corporation Westvaco Corporation, a Delaware Corporation Weyerhaeuser Company, a Washington Corporation Blake, Moffitt & Towne, Inc., a Division of Saxon Industries, Inc., a New York Corporation Western Paper Company, a Division of Hammermill Paper Company, a Pennsylvania Corporation and Zellerbach Paper Company, a Division of Crown Zellerbach Corporation, a Nevada Corporation. Appeal of State of Alaska, in No. 81-2341. State of Colorado v. Boise Cascade Corporation, Champion International Corporation, Crown Zellerbach Corporation, D/B/A Zellerbach Paper Company, Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation, Hammermill Paper Company, International Paper Company, Kimberly Clark Corporation, the Mead Corporation, Potlatch Corporation, Scott Paper Company, St. Regis Paper Company, Union Camp Corporation, Wausau Paper Mills Company, Westvaco Corporation, Weyerhaeuser Company, Butler Paper Company and Dixon Paper Company. Appeal of State of Colorado, in No. 81-2342. State of Washington, on Behalf of Itself and Its Public Entities v. Boise Cascade Corp., Champion International Corporation, Hammermill Paper Company, International Paper Company, Potlatch, Inc., Scott Paper Company, St. Regis Paper Company, Weyerhaeuser Company, Blake, Moffitt & Towne, Inc., a Division of Saxon Industries, Inc., Carpenter-Offutt Paper Company, Inc. A Division of Unisource Corp., Zellerbach Paper Company, a Division of Crown Zellerbach Corporation. Appeal of State of Washington, in No. 81-2343. State of Missouri v. Boise Cascade Corporation, Champion International Corporation, Crown Zellerbach Corporation, Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation, Hammermill Paper Company, International Paper Company, Kimberly Clark Corporation, the Mead Corporation, Potlatch Corporation, Scott Paper Company, St. Regis Paper Company, Union Camp Corporation, Wausau Paper Mills Company, Westvaco Corporation, Weyerhaeuser Company Corporation, Butler Paper Company, Graham Paper Company, Bermingham & Prosser Company, Distribix, Inc. Paper Supply Company, and Shaughnessy-Kniep-Hawe Paper Company. Appeal of State of Missouri, in No. 81-2344. The State of Oregon, on Its Own Behalf and on Behalf of Its Cities, Counties, and Other Political Subdivisions v. Boise Cascade Corporation, Champion International Corporation, Crown Zellerbach Corporation, Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation, Hammermill Paper Company, International Paper Company, Kimberly Clark Corporation, the Mead Corporation, Potlatch Corporation, Scott Paper Company, St. Regis Paper Company, Union Camp Corporation, Wausau Paper Mills Company, Westvaco Corporation, Weyerhaeuser Company, Blake, Moffitt & Towne, Division of Saxon Industries, Inc., Carpenter-Offutt Paper Company, Division of Unisource Corporation, Western Paper Company, Division of Hammermill Paper Company, and Zellerbach Paper Company, Division of Crown Zellerbach Corporation. Appeal of State of Oregon, in No. 81-2345. The State of California, on Behalf of Itself and All Political Subdivisions, Public Agencies and Districts Within the State Similarly Situated v. Boise Cascade Corporation, Champion International Corporation, Crown Zellerbach Corporation, Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation, Hammermill Paper Company, International Paper Company, Kimberly Clark Corporation, the Mead Corporation, Potlatch Corporation, Scott Paper Company, St. Regis Paper Company, Union Camp Corporation, Wausau Paper Mills Company, Westvaco Corporation, Weyerhaeuser Company, Butler Paper Company, an Affiliate of Great Northern Nekoosa Corp., J. C. Paper Company, an Affiliate of Wausau Paper Mills Co., Nationwide Papers, Incorporated, a Division of Champion International Corp., Seaboard Paper Company, an Affiliate of Mead Corp., Zellerbach Paper Company, a Division of Crown Zellerbach Corp., Blake, Moffitt & Towne, a Division of Saxon Industries, Inc., Carpenter-Offutt Paper Company, a Division of Unisource Corp., Ingram Paper Company and Noland Paper Company (Carpenter/offutt Paper Co.). Appeal of State of California, in No. 81-2346. Nebraska, State of v. Boise Cascade Corporation, Champion International Corporation, Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation, Hammermill Paper Company, International Paper Company, the Mead Corporation, Potlatch Corporation, Scott Paper Company, St. Regis Paper Company, Union Camp Corporation, Wausau Paper Mills Co., Westvaco Corporation, Weyerhaeuser Company, Crown Zellerbach Corporation, Kimberly Clark and Western Paper Co., a Division of Hammermill Paper Company. Appeal of State of Nebraska, in No. 81-2347. State of Iowa, by Its Attorney General, Richard C. Turner v. Boise Cascade Corp. Champion International Corporation the Mead Corporation Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation Hammermill Paper Company International Paper Company Potlatch Corporation Scott Paper Company St. Regis Paper Company Union Camp Corporation Wausau Paper Mills Co. Westvaco Corp. And Weyerhaeuser Company. Appeal of State of Iowa, in No. 81-2348. Montana, State of v. Boise Cascade Corp. Champion International Corp. Great Northern Nekoosa Corp. Hammermill Paper Co. International Paper Co. Mead Corp. The Potlatch Corp. Scott Paper Co. St. Regis Paper Co. Union Camp Corp. Wausau Paper Mills Co. Westvaco Corp. Weyerhaeuser Co. Crown Zellerbach Corp. And Kimberly Clark. Appeal of State of Montana, in No. 81-2349. State of Arkansas v. Boise Cascade Corporation, Champion International Corporation, Crown Zellerbach Corporation, Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation, Hammermill Paper Company, International Paper Company, Kimberly Clark Corporation, the Mead Corporation, Potlatch Corporation, Scott Paper Company, St. Regis Paper Company, Union Camp Corporation, Wausau Paper Mills Company, Westvaco Corporation, Western Paper Company, Graham Paper Company. Appeal of State of Arkansas, in No. 81-2350
685 F.2d 810 (Third Circuit, 1982)
Ronald Madden v. Kevin Myers, Honorable Malcolm Muir, United States District Judge, Nominal
102 F.3d 74 (Third Circuit, 1996)