Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 11 views

    Kelley Mala V., 3rd Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The petitioner, Kelley Mala, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the District Court of the Virgin Islands to vacate its order transferring his civil case to the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. The Third Circuit denied the petition, finding that Mala did not demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to the writ because the District Court's decision to transfer the case based on venue considerations was a proper exercise of its authority and did not usurp its judicial power.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Kelley Mala V., 3rd Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    11 views3 pages
    The petitioner, Kelley Mala, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the District Court of the Virgin Islands to vacate its order transferring his civil case to the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. The Third Circuit denied the petition, finding that Mala did not demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to the writ because the District Court's decision to transfer the case based on venue considerations was a proper exercise of its authority and did not usurp its judicial power.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-12-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-3960

    Original Title

    Kelley Mala v., 3rd Cir. (2010)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner, Kelley Mala, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the District Court of the Virgin Islands to vacate its order transferring his civil case to the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. The Third Circuit denied the petition, finding that Mala did not demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to the writ because the District Court's decision to transfer the case based on venue considerations was a proper exercise of its authority and did not usurp its judicial power.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    11 views3 pages

    Kelley Mala V., 3rd Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The petitioner, Kelley Mala, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the District Court of the Virgin Islands to vacate its order transferring his civil case to the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. The Third Circuit denied the petition, finding that Mala did not demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to the writ because the District Court's decision to transfer the case based on venue considerations was a proper exercise of its authority and did not usurp its judicial power.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    DLD-040

    NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 10-3960
    ___________
    IN RE: KELLEY MALA,
    Petitioner
    ____________________________________
    On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
    District Court of the Virgin Islands
    (Related to D.V.I. Civ. No. 07-cv-00085)
    ____________________________________
    Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
    November 18, 2010
    Before: BARRY, FISHER AND STAPLETON, Circuit Judges
    (Opinion filed: December 29, 2010 )
    _________
    OPINION
    _________

    PER CURIAM
    Kelley Mala seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the District Court of the Virgin
    Islands to, inter alia, vacate the order transferring his case to the United States District
    Court for the District of Puerto Rico. For the reasons that follow, we will deny the
    petition.
    I.
    On May 30, 2007, petitioner Kelley Mala filed a civil complaint in the District
    1

    Court of the Virgin Islands. On September 14, 2010, the District Court, upon motion of
    the defendants, ordered petitioner Kelley Malas suit transferred to the United States
    District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. Mala did not appeal. On September 29,
    Mala filed a motion asking the District Court to reconsider the order transferring the case
    and alter, amend, or correct the order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). He also filed a
    motion to alter, amend, or correct under Rule 59(e). The District Court has not issued a
    ruling on either motion. Mala now asks that we issue a writ of mandamus compelling the
    District Court to vacate the transfer order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(e).
    A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy that should only be granted in
    extraordinary circumstances. In re Nwanze, 242 F.3d 521, 524 (3d Cir. 2001). The
    petitioner must have no other adequate means to obtain the relief desired and the
    petitioner must show a clear and indisputable right to the writ. See Kerr v. United
    States District Court, 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976). Mandamus is the appropriate
    mechanism to seek review of an allegedly improper transfer order. See Sunbelt Corp. v.
    Noble, Denton & Assocs., Inc., 5 F.3d 28, 30 (3d Cir. 1993).
    Mala cannot demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to the writ. The District
    Courts decision to transfer the complaint to the District of Puerto Rico did not amount to
    a judicial usurpation of power. In re Nwanze, 242 F.3d at 524. The District Court
    transferred Malas complaint because the defendants reside in different states, a
    substantial part of the events giving rise to the complaint occurred in Puerto Rico, the
    witnesses and documents related to the claims are in Puerto Rico, and only one of the
    2

    defendants (named in the amended complaint) resides in the judicial district of the Virgin
    Islands. See 28 U.S.C. 1391(b); see also 28 U.S.C. 1406(a). Inasmuch as venue
    appears to be proper in the District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, Mala cannot
    show a clear and indisputable right to the writ.
    Accordingly, Mala has not met his burden of showing that his right to issuance of
    the writ is clear and indisputable. As a result, we shall deny his mandamus petition.

    You might also like