Omar Folk v.
This text of Omar Folk v. (Omar Folk v.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
DLD-134 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________
No. 26-1290 ___________
IN RE: OMAR SIERRE FOLK, Petitioner ____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (Related to Crim. No. 1:11-cr-00292-001) ____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. May 14, 2026 Before: RESTREPO, PORTER, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: May 29, 2026) ___________
OPINION * ___________ PER CURIAM
Omar Folk petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus, alleging undue delay in
the adjudication of various motions that he filed in the District Court related to his
conviction and sentence. For the following reasons, we will deny the mandamus petition.
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. In 2013, Folk was sentenced as a career offender to 264 months’ imprisonment
after a jury convicted him of various drug and firearms offenses. We affirmed the
judgment of conviction and sentence on direct appeal. See United States v. Folk, 577 F.
App’x 106, 107 (3d Cir. 2014) (not precedential). In February 2018, the District Court
denied Folk’s motion to vacate sentence pursuant to § 2255, and we affirmed. See United
States v. Folk, 954 F.3d 597, 610 (3d Cir. 2020). Since then, Folk has repeatedly sought
to attack his conviction and sentence through various motions and petitions.
As relevant here, Folk filed a “Motion for Status Quo Hearing” on August 13,
2025, 1 relying on recent Supreme Court decisions to attack his § 2255 proceedings. See
ECF No. 397. Folk moved to supplement and amend the motion on September 12, 2025,
just before the Government filed its response to the motion on September 18, 2025. See
ECF Nos. 401 & 402. On October 3, 2025, Folk filed a “Motion for Coram Nobis,”
attacking his sentence. See ECF No. 405. Folk also filed a motion for reconsideration of
an order which denied various motions seeking § 2255 relief. See ECF No. 409. Finally,
on December 22, 2025, Folk filed a “Motion to Compel Judgment,” seeking a ruling on
the foregoing motions. See ECF No 413 at 2. In his mandamus petition, Folk seeks an
order directing the District Court to rule on each of these motions, alleging undue delay.
Our jurisdiction derives from 28 U.S.C. § 1651, which grants us the power to
“issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of [our . . . jurisdiction] and agreeable to
1 All references to filing dates are to the dates the documents were filed on the District Court’s docket. 2 the usages and principles of law.” The remedy is “a drastic one, to be invoked only in
extraordinary situations.” United States v. Santtini, 963 F.2d 585, 593 (3d Cir. 1992)
(citation omitted). An appellate court may issue a writ of mandamus on the ground that
undue delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction, Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d
74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996) (quotation marks omitted), but the manner in which a court controls
its docket is discretionary, In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir.
1982).
Although the District Court has yet to rule on Folk’s motions, this is not a case in
which a delay suggests a failure to exercise jurisdiction. 2 In February 2026, the District
Court directed the Government to respond to Folk’s coram nobis motion, the motion to
amend the “Motion for a Status Quo Hearing,” and the motion for reconsideration. See
ECF Nos. 419 & 421. The Government filed its responses, and Folk filed his reply briefs
on March 24, 2026. See ECF Nos. 422, 423, 427, & 428. Thus, those motions are
recently ripe for review, and we are confident that the District Court will expeditiously
rule on them.
Based on the foregoing, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.
2 We note that, after filing the mandamus petition, Folk filed in the District Court “Motion[s] for Updated Status” and another “Motion to Compel Judgment.” See ECF No. 429, 430 & 431. To the extent that there has been delay in this matter, it was largely occasioned by Folk’s voluminous motions. 3
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Omar Folk v., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/omar-folk-v-ca3-2026.