Case Name: IN RE: Dennis JACOBS, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-09-28
Citations: 697 F. App'x 133
Docket Number: No. 17-2630
Parties: IN RE: Dennis JACOBS, Petitioner
Judges: Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, MCKEE and RENDELL, Circuit Judges
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 697
Pages: 133–133

Head Matter:
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:
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.