DLD-315 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 17-2446

___________

In re: KARIN WOLF, in propria persona; D and G 

(by mother and next friend Karin Wolf); 

and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

(Related to Civ. No. 2-17-cv-02072)

____________________________________

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

July 20, 2017

Before: CHAGARES, VANASKIE, and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: August 31, 2017)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

Karin Wolf has filed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the District 

Court to act on an application to proceed in forma pauperis.1 For the reasons below, we 

will deny the petition.

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

1 To the extent that Wolf seeks to bring the mandamus petition on behalf of any other 

parties, she may not do so. A non-attorney may not represent other parties. See Osei-
2

In March 2017, Wolf filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of New York. Because Wolf alleged that the claims arose in New 

Jersey, that court transferred the matter to the United States District Court for the District 

of New Jersey. The District Court in New Jersey has not yet acted on Wolf’s application 

to proceed in forma pauperis.

A writ of mandamus will issue only in extraordinary circumstances. See Sporck v. 

Peil, 759 F.2d 312, 314 (3d Cir. 1985). As a precondition to the issuance of the writ, the 

petitioner must establish that there is no alternative remedy or other adequate means to 

obtain the desired relief, and the petitioner must demonstrate a clear and indisputable 

right to the relief sought. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976). As a 

general rule, the manner in which a court disposes of cases on its docket is within its 

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

Nonetheless, mandamus may be warranted where a District Court’s delay is tantamount 

to a failure to exercise jurisdiction. See Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 

1996). Wolf’s complaint was transferred to the District Court of New Jersey in March 

2017. The time that has passed since then does not rise to the level of a failure to 

exercise jurisdiction or an extraordinary circumstance. See id. (concluding that 

mandamus relief was not warranted in habeas case where petitioner’s most recent filing 

had been pending before the district court for about eight months).

 

Afriyie v. Med. Coll. of Pa., 937 F.2d 876, 882-83 (3d Cir. 1991) (non-lawyer parent 

cannot represent interests of children). 
3

Wolf also requests that we direct the District Court to issue summonses to the 

defendants. Her request is premature. If the District Court grants Wolf’s application to 

proceed in forma pauperis, it will then be required to screen the complaint pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) before issuing any summonses.

Finally, Wolf asks that we order the District Court to transfer the case back to the 

District Court for the Southern District of New York. Wolf has the alternate remedy of 

requesting that relief from the District Court for the District of New Jersey should her 

complaint survive the initial screening process.2

We are confident that the District Court will act on Wolf’s application to proceed 

in forma pauperis in a timely manner. Accordingly, we will deny the mandamus petition 

without prejudice to refiling if the District Court does not act within 120 days.

 

2 To the extent that she asks us to direct Judge Arleo to recuse, we note that Wolf does 

not have a clear and indisputable right to that relief based on the allegations in her 

mandamus petition. See Kerr, 426 U.S. at 403.