HLD-002 (November 2012) NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 12-3947
___________
IN RE: TORMU E. PRALL,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Related to D.C. Civil No. 1:11-cv-07004)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
November 2, 2012
Before: MCKEE, Chief Judge, ALDISERT and BARRY, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: March 26, 2013)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Pro se litigant Tormu E. Prall has petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus
directing or asking the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to
expeditiously or promptly “screen and serve his complaint, summonses, and motion for
temporary restraining order and order to show cause for a preliminary and permanent
injunction.”
Mandamus is a “drastic remedy” available in extraordinary circumstances only. In
re: Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). A petitioner seeking
the writ “must have no other adequate means to obtain the desired relief, and must show
that the right to issuance is clear and indisputable.” Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79
(3d Cir. 1996). Generally, a court’s management of its docket is discretionary, In re Fine
Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982), and there is no “clear and
indisputable” right to have the District Court handle a case in a certain manner, see Allied
Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 36 (1980). However, mandamus may be
warranted when a district court’s delay “is tantamount to a failure to exercise
jurisdiction.” Madden, 102 F.3d at 79.
The delay complained of by Prall does not rise to the level of a failure to exercise
jurisdiction. Prall filed his complaint in December 2011. He then filed a Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 10(c) motion in June 2012 and an addendum to his complaint in
September 2012. The Magistrate Judge assigned to Prall’s case denied Prall’s Rule 10(c)
motion in October 2012. Although approximately one year has passed since Prall filed
his original complaint, the delay “does not yet rise to the level of a denial of due
process.” Id. We are fully confident that the District Court will rule on Prall’s complaint
without undue delay. Thus, the extraordinary remedy of mandamus is not warranted in
this case.
Accordingly, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.
2