in Re: Monodu Ajao v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 1976 . To demonstrate that mandamus is…

CLD-129 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 07-1335
________________
IN RE: MONODU AJAO,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Related to Civil Action No. 06-cv-05484)
_____________________________________
Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
February 16, 2007
Before: RENDELL, SMITH AND JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: March 14, 2007)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
On November 7, 2006, Monodu Ajao mailed a petition for a writ of error coram
nobis to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. On January 2,
2007, Ajao mailed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting that this Court order the
District Court to rule on his November 7th petition.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy that is granted only in extraordinary cases. See In

-- 1 of 3 --

2
re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). Mandamus
traditionally may be “used . . . only ‘to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its
prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do
so.’” Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). To demonstrate that
mandamus is appropriate, a petitioner must establish that he has “no other adequate
means” to obtain the relief and that he has a “clear and indisputable” right to issuance of
the writ. Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996). Although district courts are
generally given discretion to control their own dockets, see In re Fine Paper Antitrust
Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982), an appellate court may issue a writ of mandamus
when an undue delay in adjudication is “tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction,”
see Madden, 102 F.3d at 79.
Here, there is no basis for granting the petition for writ of mandamus. Although
Ajao filed his petition for writ of error coram nobis in early November, by order entered
November 28, 2006, the District Court advised Ajao that it would rule on his petition as
filed if he did not notify the court within 45 days as to how he would like it characterized
pursuant to United States v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644 (3d Cir. 1999). As there is no indication
that Ajao responded to the November 28th order, the District Court could not have
considered Ajao’s petition until January 15, 2007—two weeks after he mailed the
mandamus petition to this Court. Accordingly, there has been no delay in the
adjudication of Ajao’s petition for writ of error coram nobis. Moreover, the District

-- 2 of 3 --

On February 1, 2007, the District Court issued on order on Ajao’s motion to1
proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Entry No. 4), and on February 13, 2007, the Assistant
United States Attorney entered an appearance on behalf of the United States (Docket
Entry No. 5).
Court docket reflects that the matter is progressing in a timely manner. Therefore,1
Ajao’s petition for writ of mandamus will be denied.
3

-- 3 of 3 --