NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

. 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. mandamus may be warranted where a district court’s “undue delay is tantamount to a

failure to exercise jurisdiction.” See Madden v. Myers,

(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.,

, 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