in Re: Ishmael Pray v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 1976 “[t]he remedy of mandamus is a…

1
HLD-175 (September 2009) NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-3472
___________
IN RE: ISHMAEL PRAY,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Related to D.N.J. Civ. No. 2-08-cv-03541)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
September 30, 2009
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion file: October 9, 2009)
______
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM.
On August 21, 2009, Ishmael Pray filed this pro se petition seeking
mandamus relief. For the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition.
On July 7, 2008, Pray filed in the District Court a motion to vacate his
sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. On January 7, 2009, the District Court ordered
the government to respond to Pray’s motion within forty-five days. After receiving no

-- 1 of 2 --

response or opposition, Pray moved the District Court to rule on his motion on March 13,
2009. The District Court did not issue a ruling and Pray filed his mandamus petition in
this Court in August 2009.
On September 23, 2009, the government filed its opposition to Pray’s §
2255 motion in the District Court. Despite this delay, the District Court may now
consider the government’s response to Pray’s arguments and issue its ruling on his § 2255
motion. As such, intervention by this Court in the form of mandamus relief is not
warranted at this time. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976)
(“[t]he remedy of mandamus is a drastic one, to be invoked only in extraordinary
situations”); see also In re Pasquariello, 16 F.3d 525, 528 (3d Cir. 1994). Accordingly,
Pray’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
2

-- 2 of 2 --