In re: Derrick Johnson, et al

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: FUENTES, JORDAN and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 2. CLD-251

Case: 14-1181

Document: 003111617337

Page: 1

CLD-251

Date Filed: 05/15/2014

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 14-1181
___________
IN RE: DERRICK JOHNSON,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(Related to Civ. No. 3-13-cv-02184)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
May 8, 2014
Before: FUENTES, JORDAN and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: May 15, 2014)
_________
OPINION
_________

PER CURIAM
Derrick Johnson, proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of mandamus directing the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to rule on a motion to
compel discovery and motions for reconsideration. For the reasons that follow, we will
deny the mandamus petition.
In 2007, Johnson was convicted of bank robbery in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas. He was sentenced to 115 months of

Case: 14-1181

Document: 003111617337

Page: 2

Date Filed: 05/15/2014

imprisonment. Thereafter, Johnson unsuccessfully sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
and through applications to file successive § 2255 motions.
In August 2013, Johnson filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, where he is currently
incarcerated. By order entered September 24, 2013, the District Court dismissed the
petition for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that § 2255 was not inadequate or ineffective
to test his ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Over the next three months, Johnson
filed several motions in the District Court, including a motion to compel discovery and
motions for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
While those motions were pending, Johnson filed the present mandamus petition
in this Court, seeking “to mandate the legal disposition of his motion[s] under Rule 59(e)
and the motion to compel.” By order entered April 15, 2014, the District Court denied
Johnson’s outstanding motions. Accordingly, we will deny the mandamus petition as
moot.

2