1

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- 013 NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 C ivil Action No. 10

- cv - 04398 )

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

December 7 , 2011 Before: SLOVITER, FISHER and HARDIMAN , Circuit Judges (O pinion filed : December 14, 2011 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM
Brucestan Jordan , proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed a peti tion for a writ of mandamus, apparently r equesting that this Court order: (1) the Superior Court of New Jersey to stay a cri minal 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. § 1983.2

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
omit ted). 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 proceeding s, state courts are not “ inferior

courts , ” o ver which we have mandamus power , and we lack the ability to compel action by s tate courts or officials in connection with state court proceedings. See In re Grand Jury Proceedings , 654 F. 2 d 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 thei r 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. 3 d at 79. At this time, there is no basis for3

compelling the District Court to act, as the matter appears to be progressing in a timely

manner . The Dist rict Court granted Jordan’s motion to reopen the proceedings in April 2011, denied his application for counsel in July 20 11, and granted his motion to supplement the proceedings in October 2011. Jo rdan’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 del ayed, such a delay is not extraordinary. We are confident that the District Cou rt will timely take action. Accordingly, Jordan’s petition for a writ of mandamus will be denied.