Case Name: In re Mychael SAUNDERS, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-06-16
Citations: 603 F. App'x 73
Docket Number: No. 14-4426
Parties: In re Mychael SAUNDERS, Petitioner.
Judges: Before: McKEE, GARTH and BARRY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 603
Pages: 73–74

Head Matter:
In re Mychael SAUNDERS, Petitioner.
No. 14-4426.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R.App. P. Dec. 11, 2014.
Opinion Filed: June 16, 2015.
Mychael Saunders, Springfield, MO, pro se.
Before: McKEE, GARTH and BARRY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Pro se petitioner Mychael Saunders filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, seeking to compel the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to rule on his motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Thereafter, on April 15, 2015, the District Court entered an order ruling on Saunders's § 2255 motion. In light of the District Court's action, the case before us is no longer - a live controversy, so we will dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus as moot. See, e.g., Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 975 F.2d 964, 974 (Bd Cir.1992); see also 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."
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.