Case Name: IN RE: Joseph SCOTT, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-23
Citations: 684 F. App'x 223
Docket Number: No. 17-1406
Parties: IN RE: Joseph SCOTT, Petitioner
Judges: Before: CHAGARES, VANASKIE and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 684
Pages: 223–223

Head Matter:
IN RE: Joseph SCOTT, Petitioner
No. 17-1406
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. March 9, 2017
(Opinion filed: March 23, 2017)
Joseph Scótt, Pro Se
Shannon T. Hanson, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Wilmington, DE, for Plaintiff-Respondent
Before: CHAGARES, VANASKIE and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges

Opinion:
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, 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. 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.
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.
. 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, 130 S.Ct. 705, 175 L.Ed.2d 657 (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).