Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-9-2005
In Re: Syed I Raza
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-1644
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"In Re: Syed I Raza " (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1233.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1233
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
BPS-214 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-1644
________________
IN RE:
SYED I. RAZA,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Related to D. N.J. Civ. No. 04-cv-04972)
_____________________________________
Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. Pro.
April 14, 2005
BEFORE: RENDELL, FISHER and VAN ANTWERPEN, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed May 9, 2005)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Syed I. Raza seeks mandamus relief from this Court regarding a matter bearing the
caption In re: Rose Color, Inc., New Jersey Bankruptcy Case No. 03-23667, currently
pending on Raza’s appeal to the United States District Court for the District Court of
New Jersey, Civ. No. 04-cv-04972 . In his petition, Raza identifies himself as a creditor in
the bankruptcy matter, as a former employee of the debtor who is owed back wages.
Among other things, Raza expresses his disagreement with several of the Bankruptcy
Court’s orders, namely, the orders denying his motion to stay the sale of the debtor’s
personalty, denying his motion to have the bankruptcy trustee disclose the result of the
sale of the debtor’s property, denying his motion to stay pending appeal the order
converting the matter from a Chapter 11 case to a Chapter 7 case, and denying his motion
to terminate the trustee. Raza details various activities by the trustee that he believes
evidence the trustee’s false statements to the court and failure to perform his fiduciary
responsibilities. Raza asks this Court to stay the Bankruptcy Court’s orders and consider
the merits of his arguments on appeal. Raza asserts that the District Court has
“practically denied” the relief requested on appeal and has denied him the right to be
heard within a reasonable time.
Mandamus is an appropriate remedy only in the most extraordinary of situations.
In re Pasquariello, 16 F.3d 525, 528 (3d Cir. 1994). A mandamus petitioner must show
that he has (i) no other adequate means of obtaining the desired relief, and (ii) a clear and
indisputable right to issuance of the writ. Id. Because of its drastic nature, “a writ of
mandamus should not be issued where relief may be obtained through an ordinary
appeal.” In re Chambers Dev. Co., 148 F.3d 214, 223 (3d Cir. 1998). It is well-settled
that the manner in which a district court disposes of the cases on its docket is committed
to its sound discretion. In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation, 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir.
2
1982). Some delays, however, are so intolerable as to warrant appellate intervention. See
Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996) (discussing delay in prisoner habeas
corpus proceedings).
Raza filed his appeal to the District Court on August 30, 2004, and he filed his
motion for stay in District Court on October 12, 2004. The trustee filed a response on
November 15, 2004. Raza filed his mandamus petition less than four months after the
filing of the trustee’s response in the matter. We conclude that the extent of delay in this
case has not risen to the level of a denial of due process and that Raza has not shown a
clear and indisputable right to issuance of the writ. To the extent that Raza asks this
Court to review his case on the merits, mandamus is not to be used as a substitute for an
appeal. Raza has not shown that he lacks other adequate means of obtaining the desired
relief.
For the foregoing reasons, we will deny Raza’s mandamus petition.
3