in Re: Bradlof Brown v. Lechner, 855 F.2d 1062, 1069 3d Cir. 1988 . Issuance of the writ is largely…

HLD-87 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-1637
___________
IN RE: BRADLOF BROWN,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Related to E.D. Pa. No. 04-cr-00259)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
March 31, 2008
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, ALDISERT and GARTH, Circuit Judges.
(Filed April 15, 2008 )
_________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_________
PER CURIAM.
On September 22, 2006, Brown, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 motion in the District Court to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, primarily
alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Brown filed a petition for a writ of mandamus
with this Court, seeking an order compelling the District Court to act upon his § 2255
motion. Brown’s mandamus petition was docketed on March 7, 2008.
Shortly before the mandamus petition was docketed, the District Court entered an

-- 1 of 2 --

2
order, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) and by agreement of the parties, reducing Brown’s
sentence from 63 to 52 months and reflecting the District Court’s intention that Brown
should be released from custody that day. In response to a subsequent motion by the
Government, on March 12, 2008, the District Court vacated the March 3, 2008 order and
again reduced Brown’s sentence, this time to time served. The record now reflects that
Brown has been released
A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy, which is “seldom issued and its use is
discouraged.” Lusardi v. Lechner, 855 F.2d 1062, 1069 (3d Cir. 1988). Issuance of the
writ is largely discretionary. Hahnemann Univ. Hosp. v. Edgar, 74 F.3d 456 (3d Cir.
1996). In light of the latest activity in the District Court action as well as his recent
release, we are confident that, if Brown indicates a continued desire for § 2255 relief, the
District Court will act upon Brown’s § 2255 motion, which remains outstanding on the
District Court’s docket. We will therefore deny the petition for mandamus.

-- 2 of 2 --