Case ID: f-appx_471/html/0090-01.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 George P. JOHNSON, Petitioner.
    No. 11-3055.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R.App. P. Aug. 25, 2011.
    Opinion filed: July 23, 2012.
    George P. Johnson, Smyrna, DE, pro se.
    Paul R. Wallace, Esq., Danielle J. Brennan, Esq., Office of Attorney General, Wilmington, DE, for State of Delaware.
    Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, ALDISERT and WEIS, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

George P. Johnson filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting that we direct the District Court to rule on a petition that he had filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The District Court has since ruled on Johnson’s § 2254 petition. In light of the District Court’s action, the question Johnson presented is no longer a live controversy, so we will deny his mandamus petition as moot. See, e.g., Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 975 F.2d 964, 974 (3d Cir. 1992).