Case ID: f-appx_591/html/0179-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re: Jermaine A. WILLIAMS, Petitioner.
    No. 14-4635.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R.App. P. Jan. 30, 2015.
    Filed: Feb. 4, 2015.
    Jermaine A. Williams, Trenton, NJ, pro se.
    Before: AMBRO, JORDAN and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner Jermaine A. Williams filed a petition for a writ of mandamus on December 5, 2014. See Fed. R.App. P. 21. He requested that we either order the District Court to render a decision on the remaining unadjudicated claims in his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, or grant him habeas relief and order his release from confinement. . While his mandamus petition was pending, on January 22, 2015, the District Court entered an opinion and an order that denied habeas relief on Williams’ remaining claims and dismissed his § 2254 petition with prejudice.

Because the District Court has now resolved Williams’ remaining claims, as he requested, his mandamus petition must be dismissed as moot to the extent it was predicated on delay by the District Court. See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir.1996). To the extent that Williams also asked this Court to grant him substantive relief, such a request is denied, as it should be properly asserted in an appeal. See In re Chambers Dev. Co., Inc., 148 F.3d 214, 226 (3d Cir.1998) (noting that “mandamus is not a substitute for appeal”).

Accordingly, for the reasons given, we will dismiss the petition for a writ of mandamus in part and deny it in part. 
      
       This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.