Case ID: f-appx_670/html/0754-01.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: David James WARD, Petitioner
    No. 16-3932
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. October 27, 2016
    (Opinion filed: November 23, 2016)
    David James Ward, Pro Se.
    Mark J. McCarren, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Newark, NJ, for Respondent.
    Before: CHAGARES, VANASKIE and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges
   OPINION

PER CURIAM

In July 2016, David James Ward filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the District of New Jersey. In September 2016, Ward filed a motion for summary judgment. By order and opinion entered on October 18, 2016, the District Court dismissed Ward’s § 2255 motion for lack of jurisdiction, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability. Ward now seeks a writ of mandamus, directing the District Court to rule on his motion for summary judgment. Because the District Court has already dismissed Ward’s § 2255 motion, we will deny as moot his petition for a writ of mandamus. See In re Austrian & German Holocaust Litig., 250 F.3d 156, 162-63 (2d Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (mandamus petition requesting that court of appeals compel district court action generally may be dismissed as moot upon district court’s entry of final order). 
      
       This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.