Filed: May 24, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: HLD-114 (April 2010) NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 09-4383 _ IN RE: JAMAH GROSVENOR, Petitioner _ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Related to D. Del. Civ. No. 06-cv-00619) _ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. April 30, 2010 Before: SCIRICA, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges Opinion filed: May 24, 2010 _ OPINION _ PER CURIAM. In November 2009, Jamah Grosvenor filed this pro
Summary: HLD-114 (April 2010) NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 09-4383 _ IN RE: JAMAH GROSVENOR, Petitioner _ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Related to D. Del. Civ. No. 06-cv-00619) _ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. April 30, 2010 Before: SCIRICA, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges Opinion filed: May 24, 2010 _ OPINION _ PER CURIAM. In November 2009, Jamah Grosvenor filed this pro ..
More
HLD-114 (April 2010) NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-4383
___________
IN RE: JAMAH GROSVENOR, Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
(Related to D. Del. Civ. No. 06-cv-00619)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
April 30, 2010
Before: SCIRICA, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges
Opinion filed: May 24, 2010
___________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM.
In November 2009, Jamah Grosvenor filed this pro se mandamus petition
seeking and directing the District Court to rule upon his motion to vacate, set aside, or
correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. At the time Grosvenor filed this
petition, the District Court had not yet acted on Grosvenor’s motion, which had been
pending without activity since March 2007. By order entered on March 1, 2010, the
District Court denied Grosvenor’s motion. Because Grosvenor has now received the
relief he sought in filing his mandamus petition – namely, a ruling on his § 2255 motion –
we will deny his petition as moot.
2