2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

12-1-2011

In Re: Nezzy Adderly

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-3921

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"In Re: Nezzy Adderly " (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 120.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/120
BLD-039 NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 
2

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.