2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-4-2005 

# I n Re: C h a rles P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 05-2096

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " I n Re: C h a rle s " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 732. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/732HP S- 79 NO T P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TE D S TA TE S C OU RT OF AP PE AL S FO R T HE TH IRD C IRCU IT

_______________ NO. 05- 2096

________________ IN RE: W AYNE CHARLES, Pet i t i oner

____________________________________ On aPe t i t i on for

W r i t of Mandam

us fr om the Di s tr i c t Court for the Vi r gi n I s l ands ( Re l at e d t o D. V. I . Ci v. No. 00- c v- 00072)

____________________________________ Subm i tt e d Unde r

Rul e 21, Fe d. R. App. P. Apr i l 29, 2005 Be for e : CHI EF JUDGE SCI RI CA, W EI S and GARTH, CI RCUI T JUDGES. ( Fi l e d: Augus t

4, 2005)

_______________________ OP INI ON

_______________________ PER CURI AM.

Pr o s e pe t i t i one r

W ay ne Char l e s s e e ks awr i t

of m andam

us t o c om pe l the Distri ct Co urt for the Vir gin Isl ands to ac t i n the proceedings on h is m otion f il ed pu rs uant to 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5. Ch ar le s fil ed his m otion o n Jun e 7, 200 0; he late r am en d edth e m o tio no nA p ril 2 2 , 2 0 0 3 , an dh e also f iledm o tio n s f

o r su mm ary

j u d g m en t. Mandam us i s an appr opr i at e r e m e dy onl y i n the m os t

e xtr a or di nary

of s i t uat i ons . I n r e Pa s quar i e l l o, 16 F. 3d 525, 528 ( 3d Ci r . 1994) . To jus t i fy s uc h aT o t he ext ent t hat C har l es as ks t hi s C our t t o gr ant s ubs t ant i ve r el i ef w i t h r es pect 1 to h is s e c tio n 2 2 5 5 m o tio n , w e c o n c lu d e th a t h is c o n te n tio n s m a y b e a s s e rt e d in a n a p p e a l. See I n r e C hamber s D ev. C o. , 148 F. 3d 214, 223 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( m andamus i s not an alt ern ati v e to a n ap p ea l) . 2 r e m e dy , ape t i t i one r

m us t s how that

he ha s ( I ) no othe r

a de quat e m e ans of obt a i ni ng the desi re d rel ie f and(i i) a “ cl ear andindisputable ” r ight to is suance of the wri t. See Hai nes v. Ligg ett Group , I nc., 97 5 F .2d 8 1, 89 (3d C ir . 199 2) (c it ing K er r v. Unite d S tate s Di s tr i c t Court , 426 U. S. 394, 402 ( 1976) ) . I t i s we l l - s e tt l e d that

the m anne r

i n whi c h a dist ri ct court dis po se s of the ca se s on its do cket is comm itte d to its soun d d is cr et ion. In re F in e P ap er A n titru st L itig atio n , 6 8 5 F .2 d8 1 0 , 8 1 7 (3 dC ir. 1 9 8 2 ). S o m e d elay s, h o w ev er, are so in to lerab le as to w arran t ap p ellate in terv en tio n . S ee M ad d env . M y ers, 10 2 F .3d 7 4, 79 (3d C ir . 199 6). 1

C h arles’s actio ninD istrict C o u rt w as p en d in g at th e tim e h e f iledth is m andam us peti ti on in Ap ri l 200 5. Ho wever , the Di s tr i c t Court de ni e d Char l e s ’ s s e c t i on 2 2 5 5 m o tio nan do th er p en d in g m o tio n s b y m em o ran du m

o p in io nan do rd er en teredJu ly 2 8 , 2 0 0 5 . T h u s, th e m atter b ef o re u s is n o w m o o t. A cco rd in g ly , w e w ill d en y th e p etitio nf

o r a w rit o f

m an d am u s.