
    In re David DUPREE, Petitioner.
    No. 15-1901.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R.App. P. May 21, 2015.
    Opinion filed: May 27, 2015.
    David Dupree, Otisville, NY, pro se.
    United States Attorney Middle District of Pennsylvania, Office of United States Attorney, Harrisburg, PA, for United States of America.
    Before: FISHER, SHWARTZ and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

David Dupree, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, asking us to compel the District Court to act on his pending motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We will deny the petition.

In 2012, Dupree filed a § 2255 motion challenging his conviction for armed bank robbery and other offenses. The motion was denied later that year. In 2013, the District Court vacated its order denying Dupree’s § 2255 motion, and, in April 2014, Dupree filed a new motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Government’s brief in opposition was filed in September 2014, as was Dupree’s reply. About a month later, Dupree wrote to the court inquiring about the status of his pending motion. The Deputy Clerk replied within a day of receipt, advising Dupree that a decision would be rendered “as soon as is practically possible.” Dupree wrote again in January 2015, inquiring about his motion. The docket reflects no response to this letter and no further action regarding the § 2255 motion. In April 2015, Dupree filed the present petition for -a writ of mandamus, alleging extraordinary delay in the adjudication of his motion and seeking an order compelling the District Judge to rule on it.

Mandamus is a drastic remedy that' should be granted only in extraordinary circumstances. In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir.2005). As a general rule, the manner in which a court manages its docket is discretionary. See In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir.1982). Nonetheless, an appellate court may issue a writ of mandamus when an undue delay in adjudication is “tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction.” Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir.1996). This case, however, does not presept such a situation) Contrary to Dupree’s assertion, his § 2255 motion has not been pending since 2012, but rather since April 2014, when he filed the new motion. Furthermore, since Dupree filed his reply to the Government’s brief in opposition to his motion, about eight months have, elapsed. Although this delay is not insignificant and does raise some concern, see id., It is not so lengthy as to justify our intervention at this time. We are confident that the District Court will rule on Dupree’s motion without undue delay. Accordingly, the petition for a writ of mandamus is‘ denied. This denial is without prejudice to Du-pree’s filing a new petition for a -writ of mandamus should the District Court fail to act on his- § 2255 motion within a reasonable time. 
      
       This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.
     