Court Opinion

ID: 9881653
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-03 17:00:41.451896+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:17.626497
License: Public Domain

DLD-225                                           NOT PRECEDENTIAL
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 ___________

                                       No. 23-2124
                                       ___________

                              IN RE: SHAWN D. SHAW
                                                Petitioner
                       ____________________________________

                      On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
                United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
                       (Related to D.N.J. Civ. No. 2:19-cv-16702)
                      ____________________________________

                     Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
                                 September 28, 2023

               Before: JORDAN, CHUNG, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

                             (Opinion filed: October 3, 2023)
                                       _________

                                        OPINION*
                                        _________

PER CURIAM

       On June 23, 2023, Petitioner Shawn D. Shaw filed a pro se petition for a writ of

mandamus asking this Court to order the District Court to act on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, which argued three grounds for relief.

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
By order entered May 19, 2022, the District Court denied grounds two and three of the

petition, reserving ruling on ground one. By order entered July 24, 2023, the District

Court denied ground one of the petition—the sole remaining claim raised by Petitioner’s

§ 2255 motion—and declined to issue a certificate of appealability.

       As Shaw’s mandamus petition no longer presents a live controversy, we will

dismiss it as 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.”).

                                             2