in Re: Ossie Robert Trader v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 3d Cir. 1996 . Trader filed the instant mandamus petition in…

*AMENDED DLD-44 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 06-4519
________________
IN RE: OSSIE ROBERT TRADER,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Related to Civ. No. 06-cv-04220)
_____________________________________
Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
November 9, 2006
BEFORE: BARRY, AMBRO AND FISHER, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed December 14, 2006)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Ossie Robert Trader, a federal inmate, petitions for a writ of mandamus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651 requiring the District Judge to act on his petition for a writ
of habeas corpus filed on September 21, 2006, and a bail motion filed on October 17,

-- 1 of 3 --

1 We construe Trader’s “Motion Pursuant to Rule 28(j) of the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure, Citation of Supplemental Authorities” as a motion to expand the
scope of his mandamus petition and grant it only to the extent that it seeks to include the
bail motion in his mandamus petition. In all other respects the motion is denied.
2 Even if we were to construe Trader’s petition for a writ of mandamus as relating to
the August 4, 2006, motion brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) that is
pending in his criminal case (E.D. Pa. Crim. No. 94-cr-00534), the time elapsed clearly
would not amount to undue delay.
2
2006.1
Mandamus is a drastic remedy granted only in extraordinary cases. See In
re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). The petitioner must
establish that she has “no other adequate means” to obtain relief and that she has a “clear
and indisputable” right to issuance of the writ, and the reviewing court must determine
that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances. Id. at 378-79. District courts are
generally given discretion over management of their dockets. See In re Fine Paper
Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817-18 (3d Cir. 1982). Only when undue delay is
tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction does it provide grounds for issuance of a
writ of mandamus. See Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996).
Trader filed the instant mandamus petition in this court on October 25,
2006, just 34 days after filing his petition for habeas corpus in District Court and eight
days after filing the bail motion. Such routine delay falls well short of what might
support issuance of a writ of mandamus by this Court.2 See id. (more than 130 days
without ruling on a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation regarding a petition

-- 2 of 3 --

for writ of habeas corpus not grounds for issuing writ of mandamus).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied in
its entirety.
3

-- 3 of 3 --