Court Opinion

ID: 9965899
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-03 19:00:41.645134+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:52.082560
License: Public Domain

ALD-110                                                        NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 ___________

                                         No. 24-1660
                                         ___________

                              IN RE: URVE MAGGITTI,
                                                Petitioner
                       ____________________________________

                      On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
           United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
                          (Related to Civ. No. 2-23-cv-02273)
                      ____________________________________

                     Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
                                    April 18, 2024

    Before: HARDIMAN, MONTGOMERY-REEVES, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

                               (Opinion filed: May 3, 2024)
                                       _________

                                         OPINION*
                                         _________

PER CURIAM

       Urve Maggitti, proceeding pro se, petitions for a writ of mandamus to compel the

District Court to rule on her motion for a temporary restraining order. For the following

reasons, we will deny the application.

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
         Maggitti filed the motion in District Court on April 2, 2024.1 She filed this

mandamus petition just nine days later, asserting that the District Court is bound to

expedite consideration of her motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1657(a), and that the delay

in ruling on the motion constitutes and enables violations of her constitutional rights.

         A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary

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

2005). A petitioner seeking the writ “must have no other adequate means to obtain the

desired relief, and must show that the right to issuance is clear and indisputable.”

Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996). Generally, a court’s management of

its docket is discretionary, see In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d

Cir. 1982), and there is no “clear and indisputable” right to have a District Court handle a

case in a particular manner, see Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 36

(1980) (per curiam). That said, a writ of mandamus may issue where a District Court’s

“undue delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction.” Madden, 102 F.3d at 79.

         We conclude that the delay presented here has not amounted to a failure to

exercise jurisdiction. See id. We are confident that the District Court will issue a ruling

in due course. Accordingly, we will deny Maggitti’s mandamus petition.2

1
 Maggitti filed the motion despite the District Court’s February 26, 2024 order staying
all further filings pending a May hearing on the outstanding motions.
2
    Maggitti’s motion to expedite our resolution of this mandamus decision is denied.
                                               2