1 ALD
- 094 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 1 2

- 1046

___________ IN RE: TORMU E. PRALL , Petitioner

____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States D istrict 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. January 26, 2012 Before : SLOVITER, FISHER AND NYGAARD , Circuit Judges (Opinion file d: February 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 t he proceedings on his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In his mandamus petition, Prall seeks an order to compel the District Court to rule on his habeas petition. He also seeks certification to this Court concerning his twenty

- tw o questions of law, which he presented in a motion currently pending before the District Court. He contends that mandamus relief is warranted2 because his sentence is likely to expire before the District Court can act, and because the questions presented have significant impo rtance. Mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in the most extraordinary of circumstances. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig. , 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). To justify such a remedy, a petitioner must show that he has (i) no other adequat e means of obtaining the desired relief and (ii) a 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, 403 (1976)). It is we ll

- settled that the manner in which a district court disposes of the cases on its docket is committed to its sound discretion. In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation , 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982). Some delays, however, are so intolerable as to warrant appellate intervention. See Madden v. Myers , 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996). In Prall’s case , we conclude that the situation do es not rise to the level of a denial of due process or a failure by the District Court to exercise jurisdiction

. S ee Madde n , id. Prall filed his habeas petition in late October 2011 , and he twice filed motions to amend and supplement the petition . According to the record, the la ter

- filed motion to amend is dated December 23, 2011 , was postmarked December 30, 2011, and was plac ed on the District Court docket on January 3, 2012

. 1

1 It does not appear from the record that the respondents have been served with the habeas petition or the motions. Prall’s mandamus petition is date d just a few days later, December 27, 2011

. I t appears that the District Court has not had suff icient3 opportunity to consider Prall’s habeas petition and motions , and w e cannot conclude that Prall’s situation is in any way extraordinary or that he has shown a clear and indisputable right to mandamus relief. Prall not es in his mandamus petition that he has about three
years remaining on his sentence. W e are confident th at the District Court will rule on his habeas petition without unnecessary delay. Accordingly, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.