Case ID: f-appx_697/html/0133-01.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: Dennis JACOBS, Petitioner
    No. 17-2630
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. August 24, 2017
    (Opinion filed: September 28, 2017)
    Dennis Jacobs, Pro Se
    Mark E. Coyne, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Newark, NJ, for Respondent
    Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, MCKEE and RENDELL, Circuit Judges
   OPINION

PER CURIAM

Pro se petitioner, Dennis Jacobs, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the District Court to rule on a motion he filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In an Opinion and an Order entered on September 15, 2017, the District Court denied the motion and declined to issue Jacobs a certificate of ap-pealability. In light of the District Court’s action, this mandamus petition no longer presents a live controversy. Therefore, we will dismiss it as 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 eliminate a plaintiffs personal stake in the outcome of a suit or prevent a court from being able to grant the requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot.”).

If Jacobs wishes to seek appellate review of the District Court’s adverse decision with respect to his § 2255 motion, hé should file his notice of appeal in the District Court within the time period set forth in Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). 
      
      This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to T.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.