ELD-013 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 11-4217
___________
IN RE: BRUCESTAN JORDAN,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Related to Civil Action No. 10-cv-04398)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
December 7, 2011
Before: SLOVITER, FISHER and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: December 14, 2011)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Brucestan Jordan, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed a petition for
a writ of mandamus, apparently requesting that this Court order: (1) the Superior Court of
New Jersey to stay a criminal action, and (2) the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey to act on the lawsuit that he filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
1
Mandamus is a drastic remedy that is granted only in extraordinary cases. See In
re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). It may be “used to
confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it
to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so.” Id. (internal citation and quotation
omitted). To demonstrate that mandamus is appropriate, a petitioner must establish that
he or she has “no other adequate means” to obtain the relief requested, and that he or she
has a “clear and indisputable” right to issuance of the writ. Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d
74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996).
Here, there is no basis for granting the petition for a writ of mandamus, as Jordan
does not have a “clear and indisputable” to the relief requested. First, to the extent that
he asks this Court to stay the state court proceedings, state courts are not “inferior
courts,” over which we have mandamus power, and we lack the ability to compel action
by state courts or officials in connection with state court proceedings. See In re Grand
Jury Proceedings, 654 F.2d 268, 278 (3d Cir. 1981).
Second, Jordan also appears to seek an order compelling the District Court to rule
on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and/or his motion for a preliminary injunction.
Although district courts are generally given discretion to control their dockets, see In re
Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982), an appellate court may
issue a writ of mandamus when an undue delay in adjudication is “tantamount to a failure
to exercise jurisdiction,” Madden, 102 F.3d at 79. At this time, there is no basis for
2
compelling the District Court to act, as the matter appears to be progressing in a timely
manner. The District Court granted Jordan’s motion to reopen the proceedings in April
2011, denied his application for counsel in July 2011, and granted his motion to
supplement the proceedings in October 2011. Jordan’s motion for a preliminary
injunction was docketed in April 2011, and thus has been pending for several months.
While the decision on this motion may be considered to be delayed, such a delay is not
extraordinary. We are confident that the District Court will timely take action.
Accordingly, Jordan’s petition for a writ of mandamus will be denied.
3