Joseph Scott v., No. 17-1406 (3d Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT PRECEDENTIAL DLD-155 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 17-1406 ___________ IN RE: JOSEPH SCOTT, Petitioner ____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Related to D. Del. Crim. No. 1:99-cr-00033-001) ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. March 9, 2017 Before: CHAGARES, VANASKIE and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: March 23, 2017) _________ 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, * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 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.1 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. 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 (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). 2 1

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.