In Re: Naadir Muhammad v.

AMENDED DLD-149 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 13-1157
___________
IN RE: NAADIR IBRAHIYM MUHAMMAD,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Related to D.C. Civil Nos. 1:12-cv-06836 and 1:12-cv-07206)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
March 7, 2013
Before: AMBRO, SMITH and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: April 3, 2013)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Pro se litigant Naadir Ibrahiym Muhammad asks us for a writ of mandamus directing
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to process and serve his petition
for a writ of habeas corpus in D.C. Civil No. 1:12-cv-06836, and his amended civil rights
complaint in D.C. Civil No. 1:12-cv-07206. The District Court has since dismissed without
prejudice Muhammad’s habeas petition, rendering moot his mandamus petition insofar as it
1
relates to D.C. Civil No. 1:12-cv-06836. Following the District Court’s dismissal in D.C. Civil
No. 1:12-cv-06836, Muhammad sent a letter-motion to this Court requesting that we review
the constitutionality of the District Court’s action and change the District Judge assigned to his
cases.
Mandamus is a “drastic remedy” available in extraordinary circumstances only. 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, 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 certain manner, see Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449
U.S. 33, 36 (1980). However, mandamus may be warranted when a district court’s delay “is
tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction.” Madden, 102 F.3d at 79.
The delay complained of by Muhammad is not tantamount to a failure to exercise
jurisdiction. Because only three months have passed since Muhammad filed his amended
complaint in D.C. Civil No. 1:12-cv-07206, the delay “does not yet rise to the level of a denial
of due process.” Id. (denying a mandamus petition where the district court had not ruled on
petitioner’s motion in four months). We are fully confident that the District Court will
adjudicate Muhammad’s complaint without undue delay.
Accordingly, we will deny Muhammad’s petition for a writ of mandamus. We deny his
letter-motion without prejudice to Muhammad’s ability to revise his arguments in an appeal of
the District Court’s final order. Because the letter-motion evinces an intent by Muhammad to
2
appeal the District Court’s dismissal of his petition in D.C. Civ. No. 1:12-cv-06836, we direct
the Clerk of this Court to transmit Muhammad’s letter to the District Court for treatment as a
notice of appeal. The District Court should docket the notice of appeal as of March 15, 2013.
3