Khamraj Lall v. ( 2023 )

HLD-013 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 23-2034
___________
IN RE: KHAMRAJ LALL,
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. 3-22-cv-06036)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
August 31, 2023
Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, HARDIMAN, and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: September 6, 2023)
_________
OPINION *
_________
PER CURIAM
Khamraj Lall has filed a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus compelling the
District Court to rule on his motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and
his request for release on bond. He also asks us to direct that his case be reassigned to
another judge. 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.
Lall, through counsel, filed a § 2255 motion in October 2022. The District Court
granted the Government an extension of time to respond. The Government filed its
response in January 2023, and Lall filed a pro se reply on February 8, 2023, in which he
sought release on bond.
Before Lall filed his reply, his counsel had moved to withdraw and Lall had filed a
motion to relieve his counsel. On February 15, 2023, the District Court granted counsel’s
motion to withdraw. In the same order, it denied a motion for clarification in which Lall
sought to have the Court adjudicate a dispute with his counsel over fees. Lall appealed
the order insofar as the District Court ruled that it would not exercise jurisdiction over the
fee dispute. This Court dismissed that appeal on June 5, 2023, because Lall did not pay
the filing fee. See C.A. No. 23-1315.
Lall then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking us to compel the District
Judge to rule on his § 2255 motion and his request for release on bond. He also seeks an
order directing that his case be reassigned to an impartial district judge.
A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy that is available only in extraordinary
cases. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). Lall
must show that he has no other adequate means to obtain relief and that he has a clear and
indisputable right to the writ. Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per
curiam) (internal quotations and citation omitted). While district courts have discretion
over docket management, see In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir.
2
1982), a writ of mandamus may be warranted where “undue delay is tantamount to a
failure to exercise jurisdiction.” Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996).
The District Court has exercised jurisdiction and adjudicated several motions in
Lall’s case. We cannot conclude that the current delay in deciding Lall’s § 2255 motion
and request for release constitutes a failure to exercise jurisdiction or warrants the
extraordinary remedy of mandamus. We are confident that the District Court will issue a
ruling in due course. 1
Mandamus relief is also not warranted with respect to Lall’s request that we direct
that his case be reassigned to another judge. “Mandamus is a proper means for this court
to review a district court judge’s refusal to recuse from a case pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 455(a), where the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Alexander v.
Primerica Holdings, Inc., 10 F.3d 155, 163 (3d Cir. 1993). Lall, however, has not filed a
motion for recusal in the District Court and he has thus not shown that he lacks another
adequate means to obtain relief. Lall also has not shown a clear right to relief as he has
provided no facts supporting his request.
1
We need not decide whether the District Court lacked jurisdiction to decide Lall’s
motions during the pendency of his appeal of the order concerning his fee dispute. See
Sheet Metal Workers’ Int’l Ass’n Local 19 v. Herre Bros., Inc., 198 F.3d 391, 394 (1999)
(stating that the filing of a notice of appeal confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals;
however, an appeal from an unappealable order does not deprive the district court of
jurisdiction). Whether or not the District Court had jurisdiction, mandamus relief is not
warranted.
3
We will thus deny Lall’s mandamus petition without prejudice to his filing another
mandamus petition if the District Court does not act without undue delay.
4