Case Name: In re Terrell GEE, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-06-16
Citations: 569 F. App'x 69
Docket Number: No. 14-1811
Parties: In re Terrell GEE, Petitioner.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 569
Pages: 69–69

Head Matter:
In re Terrell GEE, Petitioner.
No. 14-1811.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R.App. P. May 8, 2014.
Opinion Filed: June 16, 2014.
Terrell Gee, Smyrna, DE, pro se.
Elizabeth R. McFarlan, Esq., James T. Wakley, Esq., Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington, DE, for Defendant-Respondent.
Before: SMITH, HARDIMAN and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Terrell Gee filed this petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the District Court to rule on his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. For the reason that follows, we will deny the mandamus petition.
Gee filed a habeas corpus petition in 2011, which the District Court dismissed as time-barred on April 3, 2014. Prior-to that disposition, the matter had been pending without action for two years. Gee prepared and mailed his mandamus petition before the District Court acted on his habeas petition, but the mandamus petition was docketed shortly after the District Court's decision. The Clerk notified Gee that a decision had been issued regarding his habeas petition, but Gee did not seek to withdraw his mandamus petition.
As the District Court has already done what Gee asks this Court to order it to do—rule on his habeas petition—Gee's mandamus petition is moot. See In re Surrick, 338 F.3d 224, 230 (3d Cir.2003) (noting that "the central question of all mootness problems is whether changes in circumstances that prevailed at the beginning of the litigation have forestalled any occasion for meaningful relief') (quotation marks omitted). We will therefore deny the mandamus petition.