DLD
- 256 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 14

- 2004

___________ IN RE: JOSEPH ARUANNO ,

Petitioner

____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

(Related to Civil No. 0 9

- cv
- 05652 )

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

May 15, 2014 Before: SMITH, HARDIMAN and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed June 16, 2014 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM Pro se petitioner Joseph Aruanno, who is civilly committed to the Special
Treatment Unit Annex ( “ STU ” ) i n Avenel, New Jersey, filed an amended civil rights complaint in the District Court against severa l STU employees. By order entered on June 8, 2011, the District Court dismissed all claims against all defendants, except an excessive force claim against Officer Caldwell. The District Court then ordered the Clerk
to issue summons and the United States Ma rshal to serve summons and the amended2

c omplaint upon Defendant Caldwell

. App arently, since that time the United States
Marshal has been unable to loca te Officer Caldwell, who no longer works at the STU. In the interim, Aruanno sought appointment of counsel in the District Court . He
also filed a motion in the District Court seeking recusal of Judge Martini on grounds that
the Court has failed to assist him in serving his amended complaint.
On April 28, 2014 , Aruanno filed the instant petition for a writ of mandamus , apparently requesting that this Court order the District Court to rule on his motions for
recusal and for counsel. 1 He also asks us to order the District Court to compel the United
States Marshal to serve his amended complaint

. On May 6 , 2014, the District Court entered an order denying Aruanno’ s motion for recusal, and ordering the United States Marshal to “ undertake reasonable efforts to ascertain in confidence the current address for service of Defendant Officer Caldwell,
which effo rts shall include, but shall not be limited to, contacting the Administrator of the Special Treatment Unit and the human resources office of the New Jersey Department of
Corrections .” The District Court further ordered that “ if the Marshal obtains an addr ess for service, then the Clerk shall issue summons and the Marshal shall serve the summons and the Amended Complaint upon Defendant Officer Caldwell, in accordance with Fed.
R. Civ. P. 4. . .” 2

1 Aruanno seeks in forma pauperis status, which we grant

.
2 The docket reflects that the District Court earlier, on June 4, 2013, entered an order denying Aruanno’s request for appointment of counsel.3

Because Aruanno has now received the relief he sought in fil ing his mandamus petition, we will deny the petition as moot

. See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp. , 77 F.3d 690, 698

- 99 (3d Cir. 1996). To the extent Aruanno complains of the District
Court’s earlier order s dismissing, in part, his amended complaint, a nd denying his request
for appointment of counsel, those are matters for appeal, not mandamus. 3 Petitioner’s apparent motion to be relieved of the service requirements is granted . H is request for appointment of a “ guardian to assist [him] in accessing th e courts ” is denied.

3 Of course, any appeal would ha ve to follow an appealable order and be filed at the appropriate ti me for us to have jurisdiction.