2012 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

8-27-2012 

# I n R e: T or m u P r al l

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ock e t N o . 12-2478

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2012

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2012 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min
. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" I n R e: T or m u P r al l " (2012). 2012 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 535. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2012/535

### 1 ELD - 44 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 12

- 2478

___________ IN RE: TORMU E. PRALL , Petitioner

____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States Di strict Court for the District of New Jersey (Related to D.N.J. Civ. No. 3

- 11

- cv - 06355 )

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. Submitted July 19, 2012 Before: Motz, Davis and Walker, Circuit Judges * 

### (Opinion f iled : August 2 7 , 2012 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM Tormu E. Prall petitions for a writ of mandamus to compel the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to act in the proceedings on his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We will deny the petition.

* 

### T he Honorable Diana Gribbon Motz, United States Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit, the Honorbale Andre M. Davis, United States Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit, and the Honorbale John Walker, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit, s itting by designation. 28 U.S.C. Section 291.

### 2 This is Prall’s second petition seeking to compel the district court to rule on his petition for a writ of habeas corpus . On December 27 , 2011, Prall filed a similar petition for a writ of mandamus , which we de nied by order en tered February 7, 2012. In re Tormu E. Prall , C.A. No. 12

- 1046 ( 3d Cir. Feb. 7, 2012 Order). As we previously explained in denying Prall’s initial petition, m andamus is a drastic remedy available only in the most extraordinary of circumstances. See In r e Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig. , 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). It is only appropriate when (1) the petition er has no other adequate means to obtain the relief sough t ; (2) the right to the issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable ; and (3) the is suing court is satisfied in the exercise of its discretion that mandamus is appropriate under the circumstances. Id. T he manner in which a D istrict C ourt disposes of the cases on its docket is committed to its sound discretion

. at 378

- 79.

In re Fine Pa per Antitrust Litig. , 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982)

. However, t here are instances, where “ undue delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction ,” which may warrant mandamus relief

. Madden v. Myers , 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996). The delay complained of by Prall still does not rise to that level. Prall filed his habeas petition in late October 2011

. Prall then filed two motions to amend and supplement his habeas petition, the most recent of which was dated December 23, 20 1 1, postmark ed Dec ember 30, 2011, and filed on January 3, 2012. Although more than six months have passed since our prior ruling and t he delay is of

concern , “ it does not yet rise to the level of a denial of due process .” Madden , 102 F.3d

### 3 at 79 (addressing five

- month dela y)

. We are fully confident that the District Court will rule on Prall’s habeas petition 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.