HLD-193 (August 2010) NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________
NO. 10-3024
________________
IN RE: TORMU E. PRALL,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey
(Related to D.N.J. Civ. No. 10-cv-01228)
_____________________________________
Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
August 31, 2010
Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, SCIRICA and WEIS, JR.., Circuit Judges.
(Filed: October 12, 2010)
__________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM.
Tormu E. Prall has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to
compel the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to act promptly on
his pending pro se civil rights complaint, which is docketed in the District Court as civil
action number 10-cv-01228. We will deny the mandamus petition.
1
On March 8, 2010, Prall, an inmate in the custody of the State of New
Jersey, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 alleging, inter alia, that he was attacked
in his cell, denied medical treatment, falsely charged with disciplinary infractions, and
denied sanitary living conditions. Prall moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(AIFP@) and submitted an Aemergency letter motion@ seeking a preliminary injunction on
the ground that he is in Aimminent danger of physical harm.@ On July 1, 2010, Prall filed
a first amended complaint raising additional allegations, and he moved the District Court
to order prompt service of the first amended complaint.
The District Court docket reflects that Prall=s motion to compel service was
submitted for consideration by a Magistrate Judge on August 2, 2010. The Magistrate
Judge has yet to enter a decision on the motion, and the court has yet to screen Prall=s IFP
complaint under 28 U.S.C. ' 1915. Prall filed this mandamus proceeding to compel the
District Court to Aexpeditiously screen and serve the complaint and summonses on the
defendants, and allow him to proceed without [submitting] his preceding six-month
account statement at this stage, because the failure to do so has continued to and
worsen[ed] imminent danger.@ Petition at & 3.
ABefore a writ of mandamus may issue, a party 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, 130 S. Ct. 705, 710 (2010) (per curiam)
(quotation marks and punctuation omitted). Generally, the manner in which a district
2
court handles the cases on its docket falls within its sound exercise of discretion, see In re
Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation, 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982), and this Court=s
intervention via mandamus is appropriate only where an alleged delay in proceedings is
tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction. See Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79
(3d Cir. 1996).
Prall submitted his first amended complaint on July 1, 2010, and the
Magistrate Judge took the motion to compel service under advisement on August 2, 2010.
While we acknowledge Prall=s concern that his suit not languish and his allegation that
he is under Aimminent danger@ in prison, we cannot conclude on this record that the
District Court has engaged in delay that rises to the level warranted for mandamus relief.
See Madden, 102 F.3d at 79 (denying mandamus petition because A[a]lthough this delay
[of three to four months] is of concern, it does not yet rise to the level of a denial of due
process@). Accordingly, we will deny Prall=s mandamus petition. We are confident that
the District Court will act without undue delay to screen Prall=s first amended complaint
and rule on his application to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. ' 1915.
3