in Re: Raphael Ross v. Ross, 151 F.4th 487, 493 3d Cir. 2025 . This disposition is not an opinion of the…

HLD-022 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 26-1857
___________
IN RE: RAPHAEL ROSS,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Related to No. 2:21-cr-00200-001)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
July 2, 2026
Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, HARDIMAN and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: July 16, 2026)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Raphael Ross, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of
mandamus. For the reasons below, we will deny the mandamus petition.
Petitioner pleaded guilty to drug and firearm offenses and was sentenced to 120
months in prison. We affirmed. United States v. Ross, 151 F.4th 487, 493 (3d Cir. 2025).
* 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 3 --

2
In January 2026, Petitioner filed a pro se motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.1 He also
filed motions for appointment of counsel, for an evidentiary hearing, and for the return of
property.
On April 16, 2026, Petitioner filed the present petition for a writ of mandamus,
asking this Court to direct the District Court to respond to his § 2255 motion. On May 18,
2026, Petitioner filed a copy of the petition in the District Court, and the next day, the
District Court ordered the United States Attorney’s Office to respond to all of Petitioner’s
pro se motions by June 19, 2026. The U.S. Attorney’s Office subsequently asked for an
extension, and the District Court granted this request, extending the new deadline to
August 17, 2026.
Petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief in this case. Petitioner correctly notes
that this Court has found that mandamus may be appropriate if a district court’s “undue
delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction.” Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74,
79 (3d Cir. 1996). Petitioner has not shown such a failure to exercise jurisdiction here. To
the contrary, the District Court has entered case-management orders, and the petition has
not been pending for an undue length of time.
To the extent Petitioner alleges that the District Court has failed to set a briefing
schedule, the District Court has since acted in ordering the United States Attorney’s
1 Petitioner claims to have previously filed this same motion in November 2025, but the
District Court docket has no record of that filing.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Office to file a response, so there is no effective relief we can grant as to those
allegations. See generally Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698–99 (3d
Cir. 1996) (noting that “[i]f developments occur during the course of adjudication that . . .
prevent a court from being able to grant the requested relief, the case must be dismissed
as moot”).
Finally, we note that, contrary to Petitioner’s argument, § 2255’s one-year time
limitation is based on the date the motion in question is filed, not the date the District
Court rules. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f).
Accordingly, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.

-- 3 of 3 --