Case ID: f-appx_599/html/0051-01.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 De Shawn DRUMGO, Petitioner.
    No. 14-4499.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R.App. P. March 5, 2015.
    Filed: March 19, 2015.
    De Shawn Drumgo, Smyrna, DE, pro se.
    Gregory E. Smith, Esq., Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington, DE, for Defendant-Respondent.
    Before: RENDELL, CHAGARES and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner De Shawn Drumgo seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the United States District Court for the District of Delaware to issue a ruling on his habeas petition, which he filed in January 2012. Drumgo also has filed a motion for recusal of the District Judge and a motion for appointment of counsel.

The State filed a response to the habeas petition in December 2012. At the time Drumgo submitted his mandamus petition to this Court, his habeas petition had been pending for about two years. However, the record reflects that the District Court denied habeas relief by order entered December 10, 2014, prior to the Clerk’s receipt of the proof of service of this petition required under Fed. RApp. P. 21(a)(1). Drumgo has filed a notice of appeal from the District Court’s order, and his appeal is pending at C.A. No. 14-4825.

Given that the District Court has ruled on the habeas petition, Drumgo has received the relief sought in his mandamus petition. Thus, we will dismiss the petition as moot. See Blanciak v. Allegheny Lud- lum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996). No action can be taken the motion for recusal. Recusal motions are directed to a particular judge and thus should be filed in the case in which the matter is proceeding. As we have explained, the case related to this mandamus petition is no longer pending before the District Judge whose recusal Drumgo seeks. The motion for appointment of counsel is denied. 
      
       This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.