Home/Third Circuit/In Re: Ossie Trader

In Re: Ossie Trader

214 F. App'x 104
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in In Re: Ossie Trader. Read the opinion of the Court — 161 F. App'x 205 →
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·Decided December 14, 2006·No. 06-4519·Unpublished

Opinion

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, 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 *105 without ruling on a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation regarding a petition 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.

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 *105 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In Re: Ossie Trader, 214 F. App'x 104 (3d Cir. 2006).

214 F. App'x 104 (In Re: Ossie Trader) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation. (Ten Cases) the State of Alaska, on Its Own Behalf and on Behalf of Its Cities, Boroughs, and Other Political Subdivisions v. Boise Cascade Corporation, a Delaware Corporation Champion International Corporation, a New York Corporation Crown Zellerbach Corporation, a Nevada Corporation Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation, a Maine Corporation Hammermill Paper Company, a Pennsylvania Corporation International Paper Company, a New York Corporation Kimberly Clark Corporation, a Delaware Corporation the Mead Corporation, an Ohio Corporation Potlatch Corporation, a Delaware Corporation Scott Paper Company, a Pennsylvania Corporation St. Regis Paper Company, a New York Corporation Union Camp Corporation, a Virginia Corporation Wausau Paper Mills Co., a Wisconsin Corporation Westvaco Corporation, a Delaware Corporation Weyerhaeuser Company, a Washington Corporation Blake, Moffitt & Towne, Inc., a Division of Saxon Industries, Inc., a New York Corporation Western Paper Company, a Division of Hammermill Paper Company, a Pennsylvania Corporation and Zellerbach Paper Company, a Division of Crown Zellerbach Corporation, a Nevada Corporation. Appeal of State of Alaska, in No. 81-2341. State of Colorado v. Boise Cascade Corporation, Champion International Corporation, Crown Zellerbach Corporation, D/B/A Zellerbach Paper Company, Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation, Hammermill Paper Company, International Paper Company, Kimberly Clark Corporation, the Mead Corporation, Potlatch Corporation, Scott Paper Company, St. Regis Paper Company, Union Camp Corporation, Wausau Paper Mills Company, Westvaco Corporation, Weyerhaeuser Company, Butler Paper Company and Dixon Paper Company. Appeal of State of Colorado, in No. 81-2342. State of Washington, on Behalf of Itself and Its Public Entities v. Boise Cascade Corp., Champion International Corporation, Hammermill Paper Company, International Paper Company, Potlatch, Inc., Scott Paper Company, St. Regis Paper Company, Weyerhaeuser Company, Blake, Moffitt & Towne, Inc., a Division of Saxon Industries, Inc., Carpenter-Offutt Paper Company, Inc. A Division of Unisource Corp., Zellerbach Paper Company, a Division of Crown Zellerbach Corporation. Appeal of State of Washington, in No. 81-2343. State of Missouri v. Boise Cascade Corporation, Champion International Corporation, Crown Zellerbach Corporation, Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation, Hammermill Paper Company, International Paper Company, Kimberly Clark Corporation, the Mead Corporation, Potlatch Corporation, Scott Paper Company, St. Regis Paper Company, Union Camp Corporation, Wausau Paper Mills Company, Westvaco Corporation, Weyerhaeuser Company Corporation, Butler Paper Company, Graham Paper Company, Bermingham & Prosser Company, Distribix, Inc. Paper Supply Company, and Shaughnessy-Kniep-Hawe Paper Company. Appeal of State of Missouri, in No. 81-2344. The State of Oregon, on Its Own Behalf and on Behalf of Its Cities, Counties, and Other Political Subdivisions v. Boise Cascade Corporation, Champion International Corporation, Crown Zellerbach Corporation, Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation, Hammermill Paper Company, International Paper Company, Kimberly Clark Corporation, the Mead Corporation, Potlatch Corporation, Scott Paper Company, St. Regis Paper Company, Union Camp Corporation, Wausau Paper Mills Company, Westvaco Corporation, Weyerhaeuser Company, Blake, Moffitt & Towne, Division of Saxon Industries, Inc., Carpenter-Offutt Paper Company, Division of Unisource Corporation, Western Paper Company, Division of Hammermill Paper Company, and Zellerbach Paper Company, Division of Crown Zellerbach Corporation. Appeal of State of Oregon, in No. 81-2345. The State of California, on Behalf of Itself and All Political Subdivisions, Public Agencies and Districts Within the State Similarly Situated v. Boise Cascade Corporation, Champion International Corporation, Crown Zellerbach Corporation, Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation, Hammermill Paper Company, International Paper Company, Kimberly Clark Corporation, the Mead Corporation, Potlatch Corporation, Scott Paper Company, St. Regis Paper Company, Union Camp Corporation, Wausau Paper Mills Company, Westvaco Corporation, Weyerhaeuser Company, Butler Paper Company, an Affiliate of Great Northern Nekoosa Corp., J. C. Paper Company, an Affiliate of Wausau Paper Mills Co., Nationwide Papers, Incorporated, a Division of Champion International Corp., Seaboard Paper Company, an Affiliate of Mead Corp., Zellerbach Paper Company, a Division of Crown Zellerbach Corp., Blake, Moffitt & Towne, a Division of Saxon Industries, Inc., Carpenter-Offutt Paper Company, a Division of Unisource Corp., Ingram Paper Company and Noland Paper Company (Carpenter/offutt Paper Co.). Appeal of State of California, in No. 81-2346. Nebraska, State of v. Boise Cascade Corporation, Champion International Corporation, Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation, Hammermill Paper Company, International Paper Company, the Mead Corporation, Potlatch Corporation, Scott Paper Company, St. Regis Paper Company, Union Camp Corporation, Wausau Paper Mills Co., Westvaco Corporation, Weyerhaeuser Company, Crown Zellerbach Corporation, Kimberly Clark and Western Paper Co., a Division of Hammermill Paper Company. Appeal of State of Nebraska, in No. 81-2347. State of Iowa, by Its Attorney General, Richard C. Turner v. Boise Cascade Corp. Champion International Corporation the Mead Corporation Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation Hammermill Paper Company International Paper Company Potlatch Corporation Scott Paper Company St. Regis Paper Company Union Camp Corporation Wausau Paper Mills Co. Westvaco Corp. And Weyerhaeuser Company. Appeal of State of Iowa, in No. 81-2348. Montana, State of v. Boise Cascade Corp. Champion International Corp. Great Northern Nekoosa Corp. Hammermill Paper Co. International Paper Co. Mead Corp. The Potlatch Corp. Scott Paper Co. St. Regis Paper Co. Union Camp Corp. Wausau Paper Mills Co. Westvaco Corp. Weyerhaeuser Co. Crown Zellerbach Corp. And Kimberly Clark. Appeal of State of Montana, in No. 81-2349. State of Arkansas v. Boise Cascade Corporation, Champion International Corporation, Crown Zellerbach Corporation, Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation, Hammermill Paper Company, International Paper Company, Kimberly Clark Corporation, the Mead Corporation, Potlatch Corporation, Scott Paper Company, St. Regis Paper Company, Union Camp Corporation, Wausau Paper Mills Company, Westvaco Corporation, Western Paper Company, Graham Paper Company. Appeal of State of Arkansas, in No. 81-2350
685 F.2d 810 (Third Circuit, 1982)
Ronald Madden v. Kevin Myers, Honorable Malcolm Muir, United States District Judge, Nominal
102 F.3d 74 (Third Circuit, 1996)