Opinions of the United 2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 12-17-2007 In Re: Jarvis Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-4270 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007 Recommended Citation "In Re: Jarvis " (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 52. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/52 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu. HLD-22 (November 2007) NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT __________ No. 07-4270 ___________ IN RE: KITSON B. JARVIS, Petitioner ____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the District Court of the Virgin Islands (Related to Civ. No. 06-cv-00031) ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. November 16, 2007 Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges (Filed December 17, 2007) ___________ OPINION ___________ PER CURIAM. On February 22, 2006, pro se petitioner, Kitson B. Jarvis, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the District Court of the Virgin Islands. Three months later, Jarvis filed a motion for an order to show cause why relief should not be granted. On November 7, 2007, when over a year had gone by without any action in his case, Jarvis filed the present petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the District Court to rule upon his petition. By order entered December 11, 2007, the District Court entered an order 1 dismissing Jarvis’s habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction. Because Jarvis has now received the relief he sought in filing his mandamus petition—namely, a ruling on his habeas corpus petition—we will deny his mandamus petition as moot. 2