BLD-039                                                          NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                ___________

                                     No. 11-3921
                                     ___________


                             IN RE: NEZZY ADDERLY,
                                               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. Crim. No. 2:06-cr-00548-001)
                     ____________________________________

                    Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
                                November 10, 2011

              Before: SCIRICA, SMITH and CHAGARES Circuit Judges

                               (Filed: December 1, 2011)
                                       _________

                              OPINION OF THE COURT
                                    _________

PER CURIAM.

      In 2007, Nezzy Adderly pleaded guilty to being a convicted felon in possession of

a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He was sentenced as an armed career

criminal to a mandatory minimum of one-hundred eighty months of imprisonment. See

18 U.S.C. § 924(e). We affirmed his judgment of conviction and sentence. C.A. No. 07-

3753. In 2009, Adderly filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which the District Court
denied as meritless. We denied a certificate of appealability. Adderly also filed a motion

for reconsideration, which the District Court denied. We dismissed his appeal for lack of

jurisdiction on January 26, 2011. C.A. No. 10-3791.

       While his appeal of the District Court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration

was pending, Adderly filed a motion to reopen in the District Court in November 2010.

Adderly then filed a motion to amend his motion to reopen on March 14, 2011. On

October 25, 2011, Adderly filed a pro se mandamus petition with this Court, seeking to

compel the District Court to rule on his motion to reopen.

       Mandamus is a drastic remedy available in only the most extraordinary

circumstances. In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 

, 378 (3d Cir. 2005).

“A petitioner seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus must have no other adequate

means to obtain the desired relief, and must show that the right to issuance is clear and

indisputable.” Madden v. Myers, 

, 79 (3d Cir. 1996). Although we may

issue a writ of mandamus when a district court’s “undue delay is tantamount to a failure

to exercise jurisdiction,” 

, the manner in which the district court

controls its docket is discretionary, see In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 

,

817 (3d Cir. 1982).

       The District Court has yet to rule on Adderly’s motion to reopen. However, we

conclude that this does not constitute a failure to exercise jurisdiction. We are confident

that the District Court will rule on Adderly’s pending motion to reopen without further

delay. Accordingly, we will deny Adderly’s mandamus petition.
                                              2