OPINION *
Pro se petitioner Christian Womack has filed a petition for writ of mandamus. For the reasons detailed below, we will deny the petition.
In 2013, Womack pleaded guilty to charges of sex trafficking by force in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591 and was sentenced to life imprisonment. We affirmed his criminal judgment. United States v. Womack, 646 F. Appx 258 (3d Cir. 2016). In July 2017, Womack filed a pro se motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See ECF No. 253. He then filed a variety of other documents in the District Court, including, in November 2019, a second § 2255 motion. See ECF No. 287.
Womacks current mandamus petition is his fourth. In each of his three prior petitions, Womack asked us to direct the District Court to rule on his § 2255 motion. We denied the first two on the ground that any delay had not yet become excessive. See In re Womack, 718 F. Appx 171, 172 (3d Cir. 2018) (per curiam); In re Womack, 791 F. Appx 368, 369 (3d Cir. 2020) (per curiam). In that second opinion, we also observed that Womack had filed a second “motion to vacate sentence, which should be construed as a motion to amend the § 2255 motion, see United States v. Santarelli, 929 F.3d 95, 105 (3d Cir. 2019).” In re Womack, 791 F. Appx at 369.
While Womacks third mandamus petition was pending before us, the District Court issued a 37-page opinion that denied the majority of Womacks § 2255 claims. See ECF No. 299. However, the Court granted an evidentiary hearing as to one of Womacks ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims as well as the claim he asserted in his second § 2255 motion. That hearing has been scheduled for May 26, 2021. As a result of the District Courts order, we denied Womacks third mandamus petition. See In re Womack, 828 F. Appx 852, 853 (3d Cir. 2020) (per curiam).
Womack then filed the instant mandamus petition. He contends that, in the District Courts opinion, the Court called his filing his “second pro se ‘motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence.’ ” Pet. at 1. This, he argues, shows that the Court has ignored this Courts prior statement that the filing should be construed as a motion to amend the initial § 2255 motion. He therefore asks us to compel the District Court to adhere to our opinion.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy that is granted in only extraordinary cases. In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). To demonstrate that mandamus is appropriate, a petitioner must establish that he or she has “no other adequate means” to obtain the relief requested, and that he or she has a “clear and indisputable” right to issuance of the writ. Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996).
Womack is not entitled to mandamus relief because mandamus is not the only means to obtain the relief he seeks. Rather, he can appeal any adverse decision to this Court through the normal appellate process. See In re Kensington Intl Ltd., 353 F.3d 211, 219 (3d Cir. 2003) (“If, in effect, an appeal will lie, mandamus will not.”).
1
Accordingly, we will deny Womacks mandamus petition.
FOOTNOTES
1
. We also note that Womacks concern that the District Court will treat his filing as an unauthorized second or successive § 2255 motion is thus far unfounded. The District Court did not suggest in its opinion that it viewed the filing in this way; instead, the Court ruled that Womack was entitled to an evidentiary hearing as to the claim.
PER CURIAM