1 ELD
- 45 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 12

- 2479

___________ IN RE: TORMU E. PRALL , Petitioner

____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Related to E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 2

- 12

- cv
- 02813 )

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. July 19 , 2012 Before: Motz, Davis and Walker, Circuit Judges * (Opinion filed : August 2 7 , 2012 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM

* The Honorable Diana Gribbon Motz, United States Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit, the Honorbale Andre M. Davis, United States Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit, and the Honorbale John Walker, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation. 28 U.S.C. Section 291.2 Tormu E. Prall petitions for a writ of mandamus to compel the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to take act ion in hi s recently filed
civil rights action. We will deny the petition.
Prall filed his civil rights action on May 1 8, 2012

. H e names the “ Court of Appeals , ” the Judicial Council , the United States, and Circuit Judges Rendell, Hardiman,
and Roth as defendants. 1 His claims apparently stem from his dissatisfaction with prior
order s of the C ourt of Appeals determining that Prall, who has “three strikes” under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, was not eligible to proceed in forma pauperis with a mandamus petition a nd appeal regarding a separate matter

. See Prall v. Bocchini , C.A.
No. 11

- 3956 ( 3d Cir. Apr. 12, 2012 Order); In re Prall,

Mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in the most extraordinary of
circumstances. C.A. No. 11

- 4011 ( 3d Cir. Mar. 19, 2012 Order). He seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the District Court (1) to expeditiously scre en and serve his new civil rights complaint and motion for temporary restraining order and injunction ; (2) to disqualify itself on the basis that it will be required to pass judgment on fellow members of the federal judiciary ; and (3) to transfer the poten tial appeal of a potential order dismissing hi s complaint to another circuit.

See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig.

1 We base our understanding of the allegations in Prall’s complaint on the District Court’s opinion denying Prall’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. When Prall filed his mandamus petition, he had not been granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis in the District Court and had not paid the filing fee. His complaint thus had not been filed in the District Court, and no copy was in cluded with the petition for a writ of mandamus. , 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir.3 2005 ). It is only appropriate when (1) the petition er has no other adequate means to obtain the relief sough t ; (2) the right to the issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable; and (3) the issuing court is satisfied in the exercise of its discretion that mandamus is
app ropriate under the circumstances. Id. First, Prall request s that we compel the District Court to screen and serve his complaint, summons, and motion for temporary restraining order and injunction on the
defendant s
. After Prall filed t his man damus petition, t he District Court denied P rall’s motion for leave to proceed with his civil rights action at 378

- 79.

in forma pauperis

. Prall then filed a motion seeking relief from the District Court’s order. He has filed a similar motion in
this proceeding , whic h we will construe as a supplement to his mandamus petition. As
Prall has other adequate means to obtain the relief he seeks here , mandamus relief is not
warranted. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig. , 418 F.3d at 37 9; see also In re
Pressman

- Gutman Co. , 459 F.3d 383, 398 ( 3d Cir. 2006) ( courts of appeals must be circumspect in exercising their power to issue writs of mandamus , to avoid having
mandamus u sed as a substitute for appeal). 2 Second, Prall seeks to compel the D istrict J udge to disqualify himself on the basis that he will be required to pass judgment on fellow members of the federal judiciary

.

2 Moreover, Prall initiated the underlying action in the District Court on May 1 8, 2012, and he filed his petition for a writ of mandamus on May 24, 2012. S uch a “delay” hardly rises to the level warrant ing mandamus relief

. See Madden v. Myers , 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996).4 Although a writ of mandamus is an available remedy through which to obtain review of a District Judge’s refusal to disqualify himself pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455, see In re
School Asbestos Litig.

Finally, Prall petitions for a writ of mandamus to transfer any app eal from an order dismissing his complaint to another circuit “in case the complaint is dismissed

. ” Regar dless of whether mandamus would be an appropriate vehicle to obtain such relief, this request warrants no further consideration a s it is speculative

. , 977 F.2d 764, 776

- 78 (3d Cir. 1992) , there is nothing in this mandamus petition that would support a conclusion that a reasonable person would question the District Judge’s impart iality under the circumstanc es. I t also does not appear
from a review of the docket that Prall has filed any motion in the District Court seeking disqualification. Thus , mandamus is not warranted on this ground.

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