Court Opinion

ID: 9956609
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-02 17:00:41.102553+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:41.633573
License: Public Domain

HLD-004                                                  NOT PRECEDENTIAL
                              UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                        ___________

                                                  No. 23-3029
                                                  ___________

                                 IN RE: ANTHONY WILLIAMS,
                                                      Petitioner
                             ____________________________________

                         On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
              United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
                         (Related to E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 5:21-cv-05135)
                         ____________________________________

                            Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
                                        December 20, 2023

    Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, SHWARTZ, and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges

                               (Opinion filed April 2, 2024April 2, 2024)
                                              _________

                                                    OPINION*
                                                    _________

PER CURIAM

         On November 16, 2023, Anthony Williams filed a pro se petition for a writ of

mandamus asking this Court to order the District Court to adjudicate his petition for a

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. By order entered March 26, 2024,

the District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation and denied

Williams’ habeas petition. As Williams’ mandamus petition no longer presents a live

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding
precedent.
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