Harvey Short v., No. 13-3650 (3d Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

DLD-007 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 13-3650 ___________ IN RE: HARVEY PATRICK SHORT, Petitioner ____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Related to Civ. No. 2-13-cv-02236) ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. October 10, 2013 Before: SMITH, HARDIMAN and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: October 22, 2013) _________ OPINION _________ PER CURIAM On April 25, 2013, Harvey Patrick Short filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, in the District Court. The petition was referred to a Magistrate Judge on May 10, 2013. The District Attorney was granted an extension of time to file an answer, which is due on or before October 25, 2013. On September 5, 2013, Short filed the present petition for a writ of mandamus asking us to compel the District Court to adjudicate his habeas petition. Mandamus is a drastic remedy available in only the most extraordinary circumstances. In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). Although we may issue a writ of mandamus when 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), there has been no such delay here. The District Attorney has yet to respond to Short s habeas petition. Once that response is filed, we are confident that the District Court will rule on Short s habeas petition in a timely manner. Accordingly, we will deny the mandamus petition. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.