BLD-231                                                        NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 ___________

                                       No. 17-1536
                                       ___________

                             IN RE: RONNIE VAUGHN,
                                                   Petitioner
                       ____________________________________

                      On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
           United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
                        (Related to D.C. Civ. No. 1-16-cv-01072)
                      ____________________________________

                   Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
                                  May 11, 2017
          Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, JR. and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

                              (Opinion filed: July 11, 2017)
                                       _________

                                        OPINION*
                                        _________

PER CURIAM

       In June of 2016, Ronnie Vaughn filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in the District

Court, claiming that his due process rights had been violated at a parole hearing when the

hearing examiner “proceeded forward with the hearing without all of the information that

was submitted to the Parole Commission . . . to score [him] correctly.” He filed an


*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
amended petition in December of 2016, claiming that “[t]he United States Parole

Commission conducted the hearing in an unconstitutional manner by not applying the

1987 Regulations and 1991 Guidelines to [his] initial hearing.” In April of 2017, the

District Court denied Vaughn’s request for counsel—observing that “it is not clear that

the petition has arguable merit”—but has yet to resolve his § 2241 petition.

       Meanwhile, in March of 2017, Vaughn filed this mandamus petition, claiming that

“[h]ad the parole board properly scored [him] he would have received parole on July 27,

2015.” He argues that the District Court’s delay in resolving his petition is “tantamount

to a failure to exercise jurisdiction,” and apparently seeks an order from this Court

directing the District Court to resolve it.

       While we “may issue a writ of mandamus on the ground that undue delay is

tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction,” Madden v. Myers, 

, 79 (3d

Cir. 1996), only five months have passed since Vaughn filed his amended § 2241

petition. We also note that the District Court, just weeks ago, denied his request for

counsel. Though the five-month delay is concerning, it does not warrant mandamus

relief. See 

confident that the District Court will rule on his petition without

undue delay. His mandamus petition will be denied.




                                              2