BLD
- 215 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 14

- 1707

___________

IN RE: ZBIGNIEW CICHY; ANIA NOWAK Petitioner s

____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United State s District Court for the District of New Jersey (Related to D.N.J. Crim. No. 2:10

- cr
- 00633 )

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

March 26, 2014
Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES and VANASKIE , Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : March 27, 2014 )

_________________ OPINION

_________________

PER CURIAM Petitioners Zbigniew Cichy and Ania Nowak, husband and wife, seek a writ of
mandamus to compel the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to stay the criminal proceedings against them. For the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition.2

Mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in the most extraordinary
circumstances. In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig. , 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). In order to obtain a writ of mandamus, a petitioner must demonstrate that (1) there are no other adequate means of obtaining the relief sought; (2) his or her right to the writ is “clear and indisputable”; and (3) “the writ i s appropriate under the circumstances.” Hollingsworth v. Perry , 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010).
Petitioners argue that a stay is necessary due to the District Court Judge’s judicial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and the fact that they are bein g prosecuted
without an indictment. They assert take that a stay is necessary to prevent continuing violations of their constitutional rights. Even if their allegations were supported by the
record , Petitioners cannot satisfy the conditions for obtaining a writ of mandamus. 1 There is another adequate means for obtaining the stay, and that is to request one from
the District Court. We are confident that the District Court would consider their request
in due course . In any event, the issues identified by Petitioner s are appropriately addressed on appeal and in collateral post

- trial proceedings

. T he record demonstrates that Petitioners have attempted to delay their criminal prosecution in every conceivable way since it began

. They were first indicted i n May, 2010, and have yet to proc eed to trial. They were appointed counsel, then invoked their

1 It is unclear whether Petitioners seek recusal, but to the extent that they do, nothing in their petition or in the record indicates that the District Court Judge’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” See 28 U.S.C. § 455(a); In re Kensington Int’ l Ltd. , 353 F.3d 211, 219 (3d Cir. 2003)

.3

rights to self

- representation, and then again requested counsel , only to ask that counsel be removed, at least four times each

. They have also asked the Distri ct Court Judge to
recuse himself three times , r equested stays pending several interlocutory appeals , (C.A.
Nos. 13

- 2675, 13

- 3157, 13

- 3802) , and repeatedly resisted the District Court’s order that they provide handwriting exemplars to the government

. 2 T his petition for a writ of
mandamus seems designed to further delay the criminal proceedings. Petitioners have not demonstrated the requisite extraordinary circumstances to justify issuing a writ of mandamus

. In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig. , 418 F.3d at 378

. We will, therefore, deny their petition. 3

2 Petitioners asked this Court to issue the writ on an emergent basis to prevent them from providing those exemplars on March 26, 2014. That date has now passed. We presume that they complied with the order.

3 Petitioners’ motion to amend their mandamus petition is granted.