Case ID: f-appx_479/html/0447-01.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: Steven DINEEN, Petitioner.
    No. 12-2956.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R.App. P. Sept. 20, 2012.
    Opinion filed: Oct. 2, 2012.
    Steven Dineen, Fairton, NJ, pro se.
    llana H. Eisenstein, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Wilmington, DE, for Respondent.
    Before: McKEE, Chief Judge and ALDISERT and GARTH, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Steven Dineen filed this pro se mandamus petition requesting that we direct the District Court to act on his pending § 2255 motion. Subsequent to that filing, however, the District Court issued an order dismissing the § 2255 motion. Dineen’s request for a writ of mandamus is, therefore, moot. See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir.1996) (“If developments occur during the course of adjudication that ... prevent a court from being able to grant the requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot.”); see also In re Austrian, German Holocaust Litigation, 250 F.3d 156, 162-63 (2d Cir.2001) (mandamus petition requesting that the court of appeals compel district court action generally may be dismissed as moot upon the district court’s entry of a final order).

Accordingly, we will dismiss this petition for writ of mandamus.