Court Opinion

ID: 9890167
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-12 17:01:05.10026+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:50:02.308630
License: Public Domain

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

         UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
              FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                   ___________

                        No. 23-2349
                        ___________

                In re: DONALD COLE,
                                   Petitioner
        ____________________________________

         On Appeal for Writ of Mandamus from the
   United States District Court for the District of Delaware
           (Related to D. Del. No. 1:10-cv-00088)
        ____________________________________

       Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
                  on September 21, 2023

Before: HARDIMAN, RESTREPO, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges

              (Opinion filed: October 12, 2023)
                                      ___________

                                       OPINION*
                                      ___________

PER CURIAM

    Donald Cole filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. For the reasons that follow, we

will dismiss the petition as moot.

    Cole filed a civil rights complaint and was appointed counsel. In September 2021,

Cole’s counsel signed a settlement agreement. After the District Court entered a final or-

der dismissing the case and awarding attorneys’ fees and costs, Cole filed a motion in

September 2007 pursuant to Rule 60(b) for relief from the judgment and a motion to set

aside the settlement agreement. On July 23, 2023, Cole filed his petition for a writ of

mandamus in which he requested that we order the District Court to adjudicate his motion

for relief from judgment. By order entered August 23, 2023, the District Court noted that

Cole had argued in his filings that the settlement agreement was invalid but also that the

defendants had breached the agreement. It denied the motion for relief from judgment

and motion to set aside the settlement without prejudice to allow Cole to clarify how he

wished to proceed. Cole filed a motion to set aside the settlement agreement which is

pending.

    Cole has now filed a motion to deem his petition moot and for a refund of the docket-

ing fees. We agree that Cole’s request that we order the District Court to rule on his

*
  This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
                                             2
motions is moot. See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698–99 (3d Cir.

1996) (noting that “[i]f 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.”).

       We will dismiss the petition for a writ of mandamus as moot. Cole’s request for a

refund of the docketing fees is denied. See Porter v. Dep’t of Treasury, 564 F.3d 176,

179 (3d Cir. 2009).

                                             3