2012 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

2-7-2012

In Re: Tormu Prall

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 12-1046

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012

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 2012 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: Tormu Prall " (2012). 2012 Decisions. Paper 1447.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012/1447
1

ALD-094 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-1046

___________

IN RE: TORMU E. PRALL,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

(Related to D.N.J. Civ. No. 3-11-cv-06355)

____________________________________

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

January 26, 2012

Before: SLOVITER, FISHER AND NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: February 7, 2012)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Tormu E. Prall petitions for a writ of mandamus to compel the United States 

District Court for the District of New Jersey to act in the proceedings on his petition for a 

writ of habeas corpus. In his mandamus petition, Prall seeks an order to compel the 

District Court to rule on his habeas petition. He also seeks certification to this Court 

concerning his twenty-two questions of law, which he presented in a motion currently 

pending before the District Court. He contends that mandamus relief is warranted 
2

because his sentence is likely to expire before the District Court can act, and because the 

questions presented have significant importance.

Mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in the most extraordinary of 

circumstances. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 

2005). To justify such a remedy, a petitioner must show that he has (i) no other adequate 

means of obtaining the desired relief and (ii) a Aclear and indisputable@ right to issuance 

of the writ. See Haines v. Liggett Group, Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 89 (3d Cir. 1992) (citing 

Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976)). It is well-settled that the 

manner in which a district court disposes of the cases on its docket is committed to its 

sound discretion. In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation, 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982). 

Some delays, however, are so intolerable as to warrant appellate intervention. See

Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996).

In Prall’s case, we conclude that the situation does not rise to the level of a denial 

of due process or a failure by the District Court to exercise jurisdiction. See Madden, id. 

Prall filed his habeas petition in late October 2011, and he twice filed motions to amend 

and supplement the petition. According to the record, the later-filed motion to amend is 

dated December 23, 2011, was postmarked December 30, 2011, and was placed on the 

District Court docket on January 3, 2012.

1

 1 It does not appear from the record that the respondents have been served with the 

habeas petition or the motions.

 Prall’s mandamus petition is dated just a few 

days later, December 27, 2011. It appears that the District Court has not had sufficient 
3

opportunity to consider Prall’s habeas petition and motions, and we cannot conclude that 

Prall’s situation is in any way extraordinary or that he has shown a clear and indisputable 

right to mandamus relief. Prall notes in his mandamus petition that he has about three 

years remaining on his sentence. We are confident that the District Court will rule on his

habeas petition without unnecessary delay.

Accordingly, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.