in Re: Jermaine Johnson v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 3d Cir. 1996 . On November 18, 2019, the District Court…

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 19-3380
___________
IN RE: JERMAINE JOHNSON,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(Related to M.D. Pa. Crim. No. 1:14-cr-00243-001)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 21
November 14, 2019
Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, CHAGARES and COWEN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: December 6, 2019)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Pro se petitioner Jermaine Johnson seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the
District Court to rule on a motion he filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. A writ of
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
mandamus may be warranted where a district court’s “undue delay is tantamount to a
failure to exercise jurisdiction.” See Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996).
On November 18, 2019, the District Court entered an order directing the
Government to respond to Johnson’s pending motions, directing the Clerk of Court to
appoint counsel for Johnson, and indicating that a separate order would be entered
scheduling an evidentiary hearing. Because the case is now moving forward, we find no
reason to grant the “drastic remedy” of mandamus relief. See In re Diet Drugs Prods.
Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). We have full
confidence that the District Court will rule on Johnson’s § 2255 motion within a
reasonable time. Accordingly, we will deny Johnson’s mandamus petition.

-- 2 of 2 --