In Re: Tormu Prall

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: AMBRO, CHAGARES and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 3. BLD-278. Prall's motion to expedite is denied as moot.

Case: 14-2074

Document: 003111652506

Page: 1

BLD-278

Date Filed: 06/17/2014

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 14-2074
___________
IN RE: TORMU E. PRALL,
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. 1-10-cv-01228)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
June 12, 2014
Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: June 17, 2014)
_________
OPINION
_________

PER CURIAM
Petitioner Tormu E. Prall, proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of mandamus
compelling a district judge to disqualify himself and vacating certain of the District
Court’s orders. Prall is the plaintiff in a civil action currently pending before the
Honorable Jerome B. Simandle. A subset of the defendants in that action moved for
summary judgment. Prall opposed the motion and filed a cross-motion for summary

Case: 14-2074

Document: 003111652506

Page: 2

Date Filed: 06/17/2014

judgment in response. The District Court granted the defendants’ motion and denied
Prall’s motion. Prall then moved to disqualify Chief Judge Simandle and to vacate the
order granting summary judgment for the defendants. Before the District Court could
rule on the motion, Prall filed the instant petition along with a motion asking us to
expedite our decision. For the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy that is granted in only extraordinary cases. In re
Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). To demonstrate that
mandamus is appropriate, a petitioner must establish that he or she has “no other
adequate means” to obtain the relief requested, and that he or she has a “clear and
indisputable” right to issuance of the writ. Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir.
1996).
Prall seeks mandamus because he believes that the District Judge should recuse
due to his alleged personal bias, which resulted in an allegedly erroneous grant of
summary judgment in favor of the defendants. It is true that a mandamus petition is a
proper means of challenging a district judge’s refusal to recuse pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 455. See In re Sch. Asbestos Litig., 977 F.2d 764, 774-75 (3d Cir. 1992). However,
the District Court has not yet ruled on Prall’s motions for recusal and to vacate the
summary judgment order. We also note that the summary judgment order can be
challenged on appeal. Thus Prall cannot make the required showing that he has “no other
adequate means to attain the desired relief.” In re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 353 F.3d 211,
2

Case: 14-2074

Document: 003111652506

Page: 3

Date Filed: 06/17/2014

223-24 (3d Cir. 2003) (denying mandamus on this basis when recusal motion was
pending before district judge).
Further, although mandamus may be warranted when a district court’s “undue
delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction,” Madden, 102 F.3d at 79, this
case does not present such a situation. At the time Prall filed his mandamus petition, his
motions for recusal and to vacate had been pending for just one month, which “does not
yet rise to the level of a denial of due process.” Id. (stating that several months of
inaction is insufficient to warrant mandamus). We are confident that the District Court
will rule on Prall’s filings in due course.
Accordingly, we will deny Prall’s mandamus petition. Prall’s motion to expedite
is denied as moot.

3