Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
3-17-2006
In Re: Almahdi
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-5045
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"In Re: Almahdi " (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1414.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1414
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 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
HPS-19 (December 2005) NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 05-5045
____________
IN RE: JAMALUDDIN ALMAHDI,
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. No. 05-cv-01613)
____________
Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. Pro.
December 16, 2005
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: March 17, 2006)
____________
PER CURIAM.
Pro se petitioner Jamalud-Din Almahdi, a federal prisoner, seeks a writ of
mandamus to compel the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to
reach a decision on his Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment filed on May 9, 2005. We
will deny the petition as moot.
In April 2005, Almahdi filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to Bivens v.
Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The
District Court dismissed the complaint because the defendants were immune from
liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 9, 2005, Almahdi filed a Motion to Alter or
Amend Judgment. In September 2005, Almahdi filed a motion to compel the District
Court to answer his previous motion.
The remedy of mandamus is reserved for the most extraordinary of
circumstances. DeMasi v. Weiss, 669 F.2d 114, 117 (3d Cir. 1982). In order to ensure
that mandamus is sparingly granted, a petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus must
demonstrate that no other adequate means are available to obtain the desired relief and
that the right to issuance of the writ is “clear and indisputable.” Allied Chem. Corp. v.
Daifon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980).
Here, on January 30, 2006, the District Court denied Almahdi’s Motion to
Alter or Amend Judgment. The District Court further denied Almahdi’s motion for an
order to compel. In light of the District Court’s orders, Almahdi’s petition for a writ of
mandamus will be denied as moot.
2