Filed: Jun. 01, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: ALD-252 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 16-1797 _ IN RE: FRANK E. VOTH, Petitioner _ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United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. 3-14-cv-07582) _ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. May 12, 2016 Before: AMBRO, SHWARTZ, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: June 1, 2016) _ OPINION* _ PER CURIAM Frank E. Voth filed a petition for a writ of mandamus se
Summary: ALD-252 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 16-1797 _ IN RE: FRANK E. VOTH, Petitioner _ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United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. 3-14-cv-07582) _ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. May 12, 2016 Before: AMBRO, SHWARTZ, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: June 1, 2016) _ OPINION* _ PER CURIAM Frank E. Voth filed a petition for a writ of mandamus see..
More
ALD-252 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 16-1797
___________
IN RE: FRANK E. VOTH,
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. 3-14-cv-07582)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
May 12, 2016
Before: AMBRO, SHWARTZ, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: June 1, 2016)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Frank E. Voth filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing
the District Court to rule on his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The
District Court granted that motion on April 28, 2016. Thus, because Voth has received
all of the relief he requested, his petition is moot and we will dismiss it on that basis. See
Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp.,
77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996).
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.