Case Name: In re: Steven DINEEN, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-10-02
Citations: 479 F. App'x 447
Docket Number: No. 12-2956
Parties: In re: Steven DINEEN, Petitioner.
Judges: Before: McKEE, Chief Judge and ALDISERT and GARTH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 479
Pages: 447–447

Head Matter:
In re: Steven DINEEN, Petitioner.
No. 12-2956.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R.App. P. Sept. 20, 2012.
Opinion filed: Oct. 2, 2012.
Steven Dineen, Fairton, NJ, pro se.
llana H. Eisenstein, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Wilmington, DE, for Respondent.
Before: McKEE, Chief Judge and ALDISERT and GARTH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Steven Dineen filed this pro se mandamus petition requesting that we direct the District Court to act on his pending § 2255 motion. Subsequent to that filing, however, the District Court issued an order dismissing the § 2255 motion. Dineen's request for a writ of mandamus is, therefore, 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 . prevent a court from being able to grant the requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot."); see also In re Austrian, German Holocaust Litigation, 250 F.3d 156, 162-63 (2d Cir.2001) (mandamus petition requesting that the court of appeals compel district court action generally may be dismissed as moot upon the district court's entry of a final order).
Accordingly, we will dismiss this petition for writ of mandamus.