Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
1-5-2006
In Re: Syed Raza
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-5013
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"In Re: Syed Raza " (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1786.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1786
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HPS-15 (December 2005) NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-5013
________________
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. Nos. 05-cv-04159, 05-cv-03437, 05-cv-02291, & 04-cv-04972)
_____________________________________
Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. Pro.
December 16, 2005
BEFORE: CHIEF JUDGE SCIRICA, WEIS AND GARTH, CIRCUIT JUDGES
Filed January 5, 2006
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM.
Pro se petitioner Syed I. Raza seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to act on a motion for stay
filed in D.N.J. Civ. No. 04-cv-04972, which is Raza’s appeal arising from the bankruptcy
matter N.J. Bk. No. 03-23667. Raza also filed other appeals from the same bankruptcy
case, docketed at D.N.J. Civ. Nos. 05-cv-02291, 05-cv-03437, and 05-cv-04159. His
1
appeals were filed in District Court on October 13, 2004, April 29, 2005, July 8, 2005,
and August 23, 2005. Raza filed this mandamus petition in November 2005.
Mandamus is an appropriate remedy only in the most extraordinary of
situations. In re Pasquariello, 16 F.3d 525, 528 (3d Cir. 1994). To justify such a
remedy, a 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. See Haines
v. Liggett Group, Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 89 (3d Cir. 1992) (citing Kerr v. United States
District Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976)).
Raza’s appeals in District Court were pending at the time he submitted this
mandamus petition. However, on November 3, 2005, the District Court affirmed the
Bankruptcy Court’s orders and dismissed Raza’s pending motions in D.N.J. Civ. Nos.
04-cv-04972, 05-cv-02291, and 05-cv-03437. Further, on November 16, 2005, the
District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s order and dismissed Raza’s pending
motions in D. N.J. Civ. No. 05-cv-4159. Thus, the matter before us is moot.
Accordingly, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.