Caleb McGillvary v.

*AMENDED HLD-016 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 25-2096 ___________ IN RE: CALEB L. MCGILLVARY, Petitioner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 Civ. No. 2:21-cv-17121) ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. July 17, 2025 Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, HARDIMAN, and PORTER, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed September 9, 2025) _________ OPINION* _________ PER CURIAM Caleb McGillvary, a New Jersey state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. He requests relief related to a petition to perpetuate testimony, under Rule 27 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that he attempted to file in the District Court. We will deny the petition.

In 2021, McGillvary commenced a civil rights action in the District Court, alleging a wide-ranging conspiracy among various individuals involved in the criminal case that led to his conviction for first-degree murder. In March 2023, he filed a Rule 27 petition to perpetuate the testimony of Defendant James Galfy. The District Court docketed the filing in McGillvary’s civil rights action and denied the request, without prejudice, in October 2023.

McGillvary maintains that, in November 2023, he mailed the District Court another Rule 27 petition to perpetuate the testimony of Galfy and three other individuals.

McGillvary has provided copies of that mailing, which did not list the case caption for the 2021 civil rights action he had filed in the District Court. In his mandamus petition, McGillvary requests that the District Court be directed to file his Rule 27 petition.1 A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary cases. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). To obtain mandamus relief, a petitioner “must establish that (1) no other adequate means exist to attain the relief he desires, (2) the party’s right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable, and (3) the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam) (cleaned up). Here, McGillvary has not established his entitlement to such extraordinary relief. See generally In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982) (explaining that, in general, a court’s management of its docket is discretionary). He did not attempt to resolve the docketing issue with the District Court Clerk’s Office or through the District Court before he filed his mandamus petition here. Thus, at this time, we cannot say that he has a “clear and indisputable” right to the issuance of the writ, that he has “no other adequate means to obtain the desired relief,” or that extraordinary circumstances are present. Hollingsworth, 558 U.S. at 190.

Accordingly, we will deny the mandamus petition without prejudice to refiling if McGillvary is unable to resolve the alleged docketing issues in the District Court without undue delay.2