in Re: Marina Karakozova v. Weiss, 669 F.2d 114, 117 3d Cir. 1982 . In

1
DLD-291 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-3274
___________
IN RE: MARINA KARAKOZOVA,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(Related to 09-cv-00458)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
August 20, 2009
Before: BARRY, AMBRO and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed October 9, 2009)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Pro se petitioner Marina Karakozova filed a civil rights lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania alleging that she was the
victim of employment discrimination. She now seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the
Defendant in that lawsuit to comply with certain of her demands. For the reasons that
follow, we will deny the petition.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
On April 17, 2009, Karakozova initiated the underlying lawsuit, claiming that her
contract to work as a Research Assistant at the University of Pittsburgh, School of
Pharmacy (“The University”) was terminated based on her national origin. Karakozova is
a citizen of the Russian Federation and the recipient of an H-1B visa which is premised
on her employment at the University. Concluding that Karakozova had demonstrated a
reasonable probability of success on the merits of her claim of national origin
discrimination, and that she had made a strong showing of immediate and irreparable
harm in the form of deportation, the District Court granted her request for a preliminary
injunction. By the terms of its order, which was entered on June 11, 2009, the District
Court required the University to maintain Karakozova’s employment for a period of
ninety days while she exhausted her administrative remedies and sought alternative
employment. Since then, Karakozova has filed a number of motions for reconsideration
and clarification, in addition to several documents entitled “Plaintiff’s Opinion” seeking
other forms of relief from the District Court. In them she claims, among other things, that
the University is not complying with the directives of the District Court. On July 31,
2009, the District Court entered an order denying two of Karakozova’s motions for
reconsideration. The Court concluded that through these motions, Karakozova was
“essentially seeking a back door extension of the Court’s 90 day stay of her employment,
and she is seeking reconsideration of the Court’s order requiring her to pursue her
administrative remedies (namely, the Grievance Appeal through the University).”
Karakozova then turned to this Court, filing the instant “Emergency Petition for

-- 2 of 4 --

3
Writ of Mandamus.” Through this petition, Karakozova seeks the following relief:
The emergency relief Petitioner seeks is quite simple: She wants to obligate
Respondent to promptly execute the Court’s Memorandum Order
(Document No. 42) in accordance with the Court’s recommendations and
the University of Pittsburgh’s policies (emphasis added). [Sic.] Second,
Petitioner would like to obligate Respondent (which includes but not
limited: employees, students, contractors, etc. to execute Memorandum
Order immediately and not later than within 5 business days from the date
of issuing notification by the Court of Appeals. Third, Petitioner would like
to obligate Respondent to promptly provide answers on all Petitioner’s
requests (future requests or already sent to Respondent) for clarification of
internal procedures, which allow Petitioner to execute the Court’s order
promptly.
She claims that the remedy of mandamus is necessary due to the limited amount of time
available to her and her inability to secure such relief from the District Court.
The remedy of mandamus is reserved for the most extraordinary of circumstances.
DeMasi v. Weiss, 669 F.2d 114, 117 (3d Cir. 1982). In order to ensure that mandamus is
sparingly granted, a petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus must demonstrate that no
other adequate means are available to obtain the desired relief and that the right to
issuance of the writ is “clear and indisputable.” Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daifon, Inc., 449
U.S. 33, 35 (1980) (quoting Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 384
(1953) (quoting United States v. Duell, 172 U.S. 576, 582 (1899))). Here, Karakozova
seeks an order directing the University to comply with the District Court’s order and,
essentially, to participate in good faith in the District Court and related proceedings. She
has not demonstrated either that no other adequate means are available to obtain this relief
or that her right to such relief is “clear and indisputable.”

-- 3 of 4 --

4
Karakozova’s lawsuit is currently pending before the District Court, which has
responded to her numerous filings and requests for relief in a timely manner. The
management of its docket is committed to the sound discretion of the district court. In re
Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982). Karakozova has not
alleged that the District Court has in any way abused its discretion in managing its docket
and, in any event, any such claim would not be cognizable under the circumstances
presented here in the context of a mandamus petition. The writ of mandamus may not be
used as a substitute for the regular appeals process. See In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d 201, 212
(3d Cir. 2006). While we recognize that Karakozova has a limited amount of time in
which to press her claims, she must direct all of her requests for relief to the District
Court while her lawsuit remains pending there.
Based on the foregoing, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.

-- 4 of 4 --