2006 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

12-14-2006

In Re: Ossie Trader

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 06-4519

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006

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 2006 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: Ossie Trader " (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 91.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/91
*AMENDED DLD-44 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

NO. 06-4519

________________

IN RE: OSSIE ROBERT TRADER,

 Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(Related to Civ. No. 06-cv-04220)

_____________________________________

Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

November 9, 2006 

BEFORE: BARRY, AMBRO AND FISHER, CIRCUIT JUDGES

(Filed December 14, 2006)

_______________________

 OPINION

_______________________

PER CURIAM

Ossie Robert Trader, a federal inmate, petitions for a writ of mandamus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651 requiring the District Judge to act on his petition for a writ

of habeas corpus filed on September 21, 2006, and a bail motion filed on October 17,
 1

 We construe Trader’s “Motion Pursuant to Rule 28(j) of the Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, Citation of Supplemental Authorities” as a motion to expand the

scope of his mandamus petition and grant it only to the extent that it seeks to include the

bail motion in his mandamus petition. In all other respects the motion is denied.

 2

 Even if we were to construe Trader’s petition for a writ of mandamus as relating to

the August 4, 2006, motion brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) that is

pending in his criminal case (E.D. Pa. Crim. No. 94-cr-00534), the time elapsed clearly

would not amount to undue delay.

2

2006.1

Mandamus is a drastic remedy granted only in extraordinary cases. See In

re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). The petitioner must

establish that she has “no other adequate means” to obtain relief and that she has a “clear

and indisputable” right to issuance of the writ, and the reviewing court must determine

that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances. Id. at 378-79. District courts are

generally given discretion over management of their dockets. See In re Fine Paper

Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817-18 (3d Cir. 1982). Only when undue delay is

tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction does it provide grounds for issuance of a

writ of mandamus. See Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996). 

Trader filed the instant mandamus petition in this court on October 25,

2006, just 34 days after filing his petition for habeas corpus in District Court and eight

days after filing the bail motion. Such routine delay falls well short of what might

support issuance of a writ of mandamus by this Court.2

 See id. (more than 130 days

without ruling on a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation regarding a petition
for writ of habeas corpus not grounds for issuing writ of mandamus). 

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied in

its entirety. 

3