*AMENDED HLD-007 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 22-3397 ___________

IN RE: TARIQ WYATT, Petitioner ____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (Related to M.D. Pa. Civ. Nos. 1:22-cv-00092 & 1:22-cv-00414) ____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. February 9, 2023 Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, HARDIMAN, and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: March 6, 2023) _________

OPINION* _________

PER CURIAM

Tariq Wyatt petitions for a writ of mandamus in connection with two civil rights

actions he filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

against officials from the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. Wyatt contends that

(1) the defendants in both cases are improperly sending correspondence related to the

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. actions, which Wyatt believes should be treated as privileged, to an inmate mail

processing center where mail is opened, inspected, and copied; (2) he has been unable to

identify unnamed defendants in Wyatt v. Hauser, M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 1:22-cv-00092; and

(3) the District Court failed to properly mail the Report and Recommendation in Wyatt v.

Mason, M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 1:22-cv-00414, which prevented Wyatt from filing timely

objections. Wyatt alleges that District Judge Jennifer P. Wilson and Magistrate Judge

Martin C. Carlson have ignored his letters requesting relief related to these issues and

asks for this Court’s “intervention” and that “maybe even both judges [be] removed from

these cases.” See 3d Cir. ECF #1-1 at 1.

“Mandamus provides a drastic remedy that a court should grant only in

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

power.” In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig.,

, 378 (3d Cir. 2005) (citation

and internal quotation marks omitted). To justify the use of this extraordinary remedy,

Wyatt must show both a clear and indisputable right to the writ and that he has no other

adequate means to obtain the relief desired. See Haines v. Liggett Grp. Inc.,

,

89 (3d Cir. 1992). He has not made the requisite showing.

Insofar as Wyatt’s contention that the District Court has ignored his letter requests

may be construed as an allegation of undue delay, mandamus relief is not warranted. An

appellate court may issue a writ of mandamus on the ground that undue delay amounts to

a failure to exercise jurisdiction, Madden v. Myers,

(3d Cir. 1996), but

the manner in which a court controls its docket is discretionary, In re Fine Paper Antitrust

Litig.,

(3d Cir. 1982). In No. 1:22-cv-00092, Wyatt filed a letter with

2 the District Court requesting intervention in the defendants’ manner of mailing

correspondence in April 2022 and has raised the issue again and requested assistance in

identifying unnamed defendants in the months since. We cannot say that the District

Court’s lack of response to these requests at this juncture amounts to a failure to exercise

jurisdiction, particularly where the District Court has otherwise promptly ruled on

dispositive motions and the action remains ongoing. In these circumstances, we are

confident that the District Court will rule on Wyatt’s pending requests without undue

delay. And in Wyatt’s other case, the District Court addressed Wyatt’s request to order

the defendants to treat case-related correspondence as privileged,1 as well as Wyatt’s

contentions that he did not timely receive notice of the Report and Recommendation or

certain other District Court documents, in orders entered in November 2022 and January

of this year. See M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 1:22-cv-00414, ECF Nos. 29, 31, 32. Nothing

precludes Wyatt from seeking further relief in the District Court through properly filed

motions or from challenging any adverse decisions on appeal. See In re Kensington Int’l

Ltd.,

(3d Cir. 2003) (“If, in effect, an appeal will lie, mandamus will

not.”).

Mandamus relief is also not warranted with respect to Wyatt’s request that we

remove Judges Wilson and Carlson from his cases. While “[m]andamus is a proper

means for this court to review a district court judge’s refusal to recuse from a case

pursuant to

(a),” Alexander v. Primerica Holdings, Inc.,

, 163

1 Specifically, the District Court denied Wyatt’s request for relief in that case. 3 (3d Cir. 1993), Wyatt has not filed motions seeking recusal in either of his District Court

actions, and he has thus not shown that he lacks other adequate means to obtain relief, see

In re Kensington Int’l Ltd.,

. Moreover, Wyatt has provided no facts

upon which a reasonable person “would conclude that the [judges’] impartiality might

reasonably be questioned.” In re Kensington Int’l Ltd.,

(3d Cir. 2004).

Accordingly, we will deny the mandamus petition.2

2 Wyatt’s motion for a preliminary and permanent injunction and a temporary restraining order is denied. 4