Joseph Scott v. , 684 F. App'x 223 ( 2017 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
DLD-155
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 17-1406
___________
IN RE: JOSEPH SCOTT,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
(Related to D. Del. Crim. No. 1:99-cr-00033-001)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
March 9, 2017
Before: CHAGARES, VANASKIE and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: March 23, 2017)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Joseph Scott, a federal inmate currently incarcerated at FCI-Fairton, filed this
mandamus petition on February 16, 2017, claiming that the District Court has failed to
timely rule on his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Scott
filed the § 3582(c) motion six months earlier. After Scott filed his mandamus petition,
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
the District Court ordered the Government to respond to Scott’s § 3582(c)(2) motion by
March 27, 2017, and permitted Scott time after that in which to file a reply.
In light of the above, we cannot conclude that the District Court’s delay in
adjudicating Scott’s § 3582(c)(2) motion is “tantamount to a failure to exercise
jurisdiction,” Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996), such that mandamus
relief may be appropriate. Accordingly, the mandamus petition is denied.1 This denial is
without prejudice to Scott’s filing a new mandamus petition should the District Court fail
to act on his § 3582(c)(2) motion within a reasonable time.
1
The petition is also denied to the extent Scott requests that we order his “immediate
release” pending disposition of his § 3582(c)(2) motion. See Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558
U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam) (explaining that a mandamus petitioner must show,
inter alia, that “no other adequate means [exist] to attain the relief he desires”); cf. Fed. R.
App. P. 9(b); Landano v. Rafferty, 970 F.2d 1230, 1239 (3d Cir. 1992).
2