Court Opinion

ID: 9911701
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-20 18:00:40.56057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:59.599433
License: Public Domain

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                 ___________

                      No. 23-3055
                      ___________

         IN RE: CALEB L. MCGILLVARY,
                                 Petitioner
      ____________________________________

       On Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
          (Related to D.C. No. 1-22-cv-04185)
      ____________________________________

     Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
                 on December 7, 2023

 Before: BIBAS, MATEY, and CHUNG, Circuit Judges

           (Opinion filed: December 20, 2023)
      ____________________________________
                                       ___________

                                        OPINION*
                                       ___________

PER CURIAM

    On June 22, 2022, Caleb L. McGillvary filed a petition with the District Court for a

writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On November 20, 2023, McGillvary

filed the instant petition for a writ of mandamus in which he asks this Court to order

the District Court to file, and then rule on, his motion to withdraw his in forma pau-

peris (“IFP”) application. He states that he submitted this motion to the District Court

on May 23, 2023. A motion to withdraw an IFP application does not appear on the

docket, but the issue has been resolved through the payment of the filing fee.

    We note that we already addressed this issue when we ruled on two other mandamus

petitions filed by McGillvary. See In re: Caleb L. McGillvary, Nos. 23-2660 & 23-2820,

2023 WL 8229975, at *1 (3d Cir. Nov. 28, 2023). As we explained there, McGillvary ’s

complaint regarding his motion to withdraw his IFP application is better directed to the

District Court. See generally Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996). We are

confident that the District Court, upon receiving notice of the issue, will address it in due

course. We reach the same conclusion here.

    Accordingly, we will deny McGillvary’s petition for a writ of mandamus.

*
  This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
                                              2