in Re: Samirkumar J. Shah v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 3d Cir. 1996 , the delay in resolving Shah’s § 2255 motion…

AMENDED HLD-008 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 25-3186
___________
IN RE: SAMIRKUMAR J. SHAH,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(Related to Crim. No. 2:16-cr-00110-001)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
January 15, 2026
Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, HARDIMAN, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: February 25, 2026)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
In June 2019, petitioner Samirkumar Shah was convicted of healthcare fraud under
18 U.S.C. § 1347. In January 2024, while he was serving his sentence for that crime, he
filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging his conviction and sentence. He
* 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
filed an amended motion in September 2024.1 In September 2025, Shah asked the
District Court for a status update as to his § 2255 motions. The court advised him that
the motions remained pending, and that he would be advised when the court resolved
them.
Shah then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in this Court, alleging
extraordinary delay in the adjudication of his § 2255 motion.
While a writ of mandamus may be warranted where “undue delay is tantamount to
a failure to exercise jurisdiction,” Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996), the
delay in resolving Shah’s § 2255 motion does not meet that standard. As noted above,
the District Court advised Shah as recently as September 2025 that his § 2255 motion and
attempt to amend it were still pending, and that he would be notified when they were
resolved. After that, Shah filed a motion to recuse the District Judge. That motion is also
pending in the District Court. We are confident that the District Court will decide the
motions in due course.
We will thus deny Shah’s mandamus petition without prejudice to his filing
another mandamus petition if the District Court does not act without undue delay.2
1 Meanwhile, Shah and the government were actively litigating Shah’s motion to reduce
his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The District Court entered an order in
August 2024 reducing his sentence from seventy-eight months to seventy months. Shah
was released from custody in November 2024.
2 All pending motions are denied. To the extent that Shah asks us to order the District
Judge to recuse himself, we decline to act on any such request because the recusal motion
he filed in the District Court is pending there.

-- 2 of 2 --