Nezzy Adderly V. , 453 F. App'x 161 ( 2011 )

BLD-039 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 11-3921
___________
IN RE: NEZZY ADDERLY,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Related to E.D. Pa. Crim. No. 2:06-cr-00548-001)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
November 10, 2011
Before: SCIRICA, SMITH and CHAGARES Circuit Judges
(Filed: December 1, 2011)
_________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_________
PER CURIAM.
In 2007, Nezzy Adderly pleaded guilty to being a convicted felon in possession of
a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He was sentenced as an armed career
criminal to a mandatory minimum of one-hundred eighty months of imprisonment. See
18 U.S.C. § 924(e). We affirmed his judgment of conviction and sentence. C.A. No. 07-
3753. In 2009, Adderly filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which the District Court
denied as meritless. We denied a certificate of appealability. Adderly also filed a motion
for reconsideration, which the District Court denied. We dismissed his appeal for lack of
jurisdiction on January 26, 2011. C.A. No. 10-3791.
While his appeal of the District Court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration
was pending, Adderly filed a motion to reopen in the District Court in November 2010.
Adderly then filed a motion to amend his motion to reopen on March 14, 2011. On
October 25, 2011, Adderly filed a pro se mandamus petition with this Court, seeking to
compel the District Court to rule on his motion to reopen.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy available in only the most extraordinary
circumstances. In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005).
“A petitioner seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus must have no other adequate
means to obtain the desired relief, and must show that the right to issuance is clear and
indisputable.” Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996). Although we may
issue a writ of mandamus when a district court’s “undue delay is tantamount to a failure
to exercise jurisdiction,” Madden, 102 F.3d at 79, the manner in which the district court
controls its docket is discretionary, see In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810,
817 (3d Cir. 1982).
The District Court has yet to rule on Adderly’s motion to reopen. However, we
conclude that this does not constitute a failure to exercise jurisdiction. We are confident
that the District Court will rule on Adderly’s pending motion to reopen without further
delay. Accordingly, we will deny Adderly’s mandamus petition.
2