Case Name: IN RE: Daniel Arthur HELEVA, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-16
Citations: 711 F. App'x 116
Docket Number: No. 17-3491
Parties: IN RE: Daniel Arthur HELEVA, Petitioner
Judges: Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, CHAGARES and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 711
Pages: 116–117

Head Matter:
IN RE: Daniel Arthur HELEVA, Petitioner
No. 17-3491
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. November 30, 2017
(Opinion filed: February 16, 2018)
Daniel Arthur Heleva, Pro Se
E. David Christine, Jr., Esq., Mark S. Matthews, Esq., Monroe County Office of District Attorney, Stroudsburg, PA, for Respondent
Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, CHAGARES and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM
Daniel Heleva, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to expedite his habeas proceedings. On January 9, 2018, the District Court denied Heleva's amended habeas petition. To the extent Heleva has obtained the relief he sought, his mandamus petition is moot. Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996).
' To the extent Heleva seeks release from prison based on the merits of the claim he raised in his amended habeas petition, mandamus relief is not available because Heleva had other adequate means to obtain the desired relief via his amended habeas petition and he can pursue his claim on appeal. See In re Patenaude, 210 F.3d 135, 141 (2000). Similarly, to the extent Heleva seeks mandamus relief in connection with motions he filed in District Court that were not addressed in the District Court's decision denying habeas relief, Heleva moved the District Court to review these motions and filed a notice of appeal and thus has other adequate means to obtain relief.
Accordingly, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.
. Heleva's motion to strike Respondent's response filed November 27, 2017, which may be construed as a response to the mandamus petition, is denied. To the extent the response may be construed as requesting reconsideration of the Clerk's Order granting Heleva in forma pauperis status, the request is denied.