IN RE: Dennis HICKS (2020)

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

IN RE: Dennis HICKS, Petitioner

No. 20-1160

Decided: April 06, 2020

Before: MCKEE, SHWARTZ and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges

Dennis Hicks, Pro Se Matthew K. Hubbard, Esq., City of Philadelphia, Law Department, Philadelphia, PA, Melanie B. Wilmoth, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Philadelphia, PA, for Respondent

OPINION *

Dennis Hicks is a Pennsylvania prisoner proceeding pro se. On September 19, 2019, he filed a motion to modify his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 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 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, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996), there is no such protraction here. Cf. id. (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.

PER CURIAM

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law