Case Name: In re: Lonnie SPELLMAN, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-03-08
Citations: 642 F. App'x 100
Docket Number: No. 15-2748
Parties: In re: Lonnie SPELLMAN, Petitioner.
Judges: Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, GARTH and BARRY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 642
Pages: 100–100

Head Matter:
In re: Lonnie SPELLMAN, Petitioner.
No. 15-2748.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R.App. P. Dec. 2, 2015.
Opinion filed: March 8, 2016.
Lonnie Spellman, Frackyille, PA, pro se.
Vincent R. Mazeski, Esq., Pennsylvania. Department of Corrections Office of Chief Counsel, Mechanicsburg, PA, for Defendant-Respondent.
Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, GARTH and BARRY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner Lonnie Spellman, a Pennsylvania prisoner, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus on July 22, 2015. See Fed. R.App. P. 21. He stated that the District Court had failed to act on his outstanding motion for injunctive relief related to his civil rights complaint alleging unlawful exposure to second-hand smoke. Spellman requested, inter alia, that we grant him injunctive relief and order placement in a single cell and a medical examination. On October 15, 2015, we directed the Respondents and invited the District Court to respond to Spellman's petition. The District Court reopened Spellman's case on October 19, and then entered a memorandum and order on October 30, addressing pending matters in Spellman's case, including his request for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction.
Because the District Court has reopened Spellman's case and addressed the pending motions, his mandamus petition must be dismissed as moot to the extent it was predicated on the District Court's failure to exercise jurisdiction. See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir.1996). To the extent that Spellman also asked this Court to grant him substantive relief related to his pending action, we deny that request, as it would properly be asserted before the District Court and then raised on appeal, if necessary. See In re Chambers Dev. Co., Inc., 148 F.3d 214, 226 (3d Cir.1998) (explaining that mandamus is an appellate power "different in kind from an appeal" and thus "not a substitute for appeal").
Accordingly, for the reasons given, we will dismiss the petition for a writ of mandamus in part and deny it in part.
"This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.