2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-20-2011

In Re: Jay Thomas

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-2211

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

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 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"In Re: Jay Thomas " (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 838.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/838
AMENDED ALD-226 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-2211

___________

IN RE: JAY THOMAS,

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. No. 2-10-cv-03898)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

June 30, 2011

Before: SCIRICA, HARDIMAN and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: July 20, 2011)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Petitioner Jay Thomas, proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of mandamus compelling 

the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to rule on his motion to 

reopen the case filed in January 2011.

Thomas originally filed his complaint in August 2010, which he amended in 

November 2010. On December 10, 2010, Thomas filed an “application/petition to 

dismiss...,” which the District Court granted “voluntarily and without prejudice” on 
2

December 13, 2010. On January 10, 2011, Thomas filed a motion for relief from 

judgment or to reopen the complaint. The docket indicates that the defendants filed 

responses in opposition to reopening and The County of Bergen Special Transportation 

(“Bergen County”) filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in January 2011. Thomas 

filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss to which Bergen County replied in February 

2011. Thomas filed a memorandum in opposition to Bergen County’s motion to dismiss 

on February 15, 2011. About three months later, on May 6, 2011, Thomas filed an 

affidavit and an “amended application to transfer venue.” He then filed the current 

petition for a writ of mandamus on May 9, 2011.

Mandamus is a drastic remedy that is granted only in extraordinary cases. 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). 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.

Here, there is no basis for granting the petition for a writ of mandamus, as there 
3

has been no undue delay in adjudication of Thomas’s motion for relief from judgment or 

to reopen the complaint. The district court docket reflects that Thomas’s motion for 

relief from judgment or reopen the complaint and Bergen County’s motion to dismiss 

were ready for disposition no earlier than February 15, 2011.

While we may issue a writ of mandamus in response to undue delay, only a few 

months have passed since Thomas’s motion for relief from judgment or to reopen his 

complaint has been ready for disposition. This short time (of about four months) does not 

warrant mandamus relief. Cf. Madden, 102 F.3d at 79 (eight months of inaction on 

motions is not sufficient to compel mandamus). We are fully confident that the District 

Court will rule on Thomas’s motion without undue delay. Thomas’s petition for a writ of 

mandamus will be denied. In light of our disposition, Thomas’s motion seeking to 

expedite this matter and to appoint counsel is denied as moot.