BLD-215 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 14-1707

___________

IN RE: ZBIGNIEW CICHY; ANIA NOWAK

Petitioners

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States 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 is 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 being 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 Petitioners are appropriately 

addressed on appeal and in collateral post-trial proceedings. 

The record demonstrates that Petitioners have attempted to delay their criminal 

prosecution in every conceivable way since it began. They were first indicted in May, 

2010, and have yet to proceed 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 District Court Judge to 

recuse himself three times, requested 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

 This 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.