Case Name: In re Louis WATLEY, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-08-01
Citations: 441 F. App'x 83
Docket Number: No. 11-2068
Parties: In re Louis WATLEY, Petitioner.
Judges: Before: SCIRICA, HARDIMAN and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 441
Pages: 83–83

Head Matter:
In re Louis WATLEY, Petitioner.
No. 11-2068.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. RApp. P. July 14, 2011.
Opinion filed: Aug. 1, 2011.
Louis Watley, Rahway, NJ, pro se.
Atty. Gen. NJ, Esq., Office of Attorney General of New Jersey, Trenton, NJ, U.S. Atty Newark, Office of United States Attorney, Newark, NJ, for Respondent.
Before: SCIRICA, HARDIMAN and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Louis Watley seeks a writ of mandamus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651, directing the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to rule on his habeas corpus petition. Subsequent to the filing of this mandamus petition, however, the District Court dismissed Watley's habeas petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies. Accordingly, to the extent Watley seeks to have this Court order the District Court to rule on the habeas petition, his mandamus petition will be denied as moot. See Blandak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir.1996) ("If developments occur during the course of adjudication that . prevent a court from being able to grant the requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot."). And to the extent Wat-ley requests that we "declare" as "arbitrary, capricious, and [an] abuse of power" the District Court's seven-month delay in adjudicating the habeas petition, that request is denied; mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal. See In re Chambers Dev. Co., 148 F.3d 214, 226 (3d Cir.1998).
. Watley's appeal of that decision is pending before this Court. See CA No. 11-2808.