Page:United States Reports 502 OCT. TERM 1991.pdf/401

 502us2$19I 01-22-99 08:09:52 PAGES OPINPGT

Cite as: 502 U. S. 236 (1992)

243

Stevens, J., concurring in judgment

for Northern District of Cal., 426 U. S. 394, 403 (1976), “particularly in an era of excessively crowded lower court dockets, it is in the interest of the fair and prompt administration of justice to discourage piecemeal litigation.” Moreover, as we have so frequently recognized, mandamus is disfavored because it has “the unfortunate consequence of making the judge a litigant, obliged to obtain personal counsel or to leave his defense to one of the litigants [appearing] before him.” Ex parte Fahey, 332 U. S. 258, 260 (1947). Mandamus is an “extraordinary remed[y] reserved for really extraordinary causes,” ibid., precisely because of the great respect we have for our fellow jurists. This is not a situation in which the Ninth Circuit has unduly delayed decision of a case, but rather a situation in which that court has chosen to avoid repetitive and piecemeal litigation by consolidating two appeals. Respect for our fellow judges means providing them latitude in the handling of their burgeoning dockets, and granting due deference to those whose dockets are less discretionary than ours. For the foregoing reasons, and because the State has failed to comply with this Court’s Rule 20.1, I believe that the State’s petition should have been denied summarily.