ALD-111 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 20-1160 ___________

In re: DENNIS HICKS, Petitioner ____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Related to E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 2-07-cr-00083-001) ____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. February 6, 2020 Before: MCKEE, SHWARTZ and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: April 6, 2020) _________

OPINION* _________

PER CURIAM

Dennis Hicks is a Pennsylvania prisoner proceeding pro se. On September 19,

2019, he filed a motion to modify his sentence pursuant to

in the

District Court.

Approximately four months later, on January 14, 2010, Hicks filed in this Court a

petition for a writ of mandamus. Hicks states that his § 3582 motion has been sitting in

* 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 for over three months without a ruling and asks us to compel the

District Court to adjudicate it.

We will deny the petition. While issuance of the writ may be warranted when

district court proceedings are so protracted as to amount to a failure to exercise

jurisdiction, see Madden v. Myers,

(3d Cir. 1996), there is no such

protraction here. Cf.

(holding that eight months of inaction on a motion was

insufficient to compel mandamus relief). We are confident that the District Court will

adjudicate Hicks’s motion in due course.

Accordingly, we will deny the mandamus petition.