Filed: Mar. 16, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: RESUBMIT HLD-003 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 16-2749 _ IN RE: ALTON D. BROWN, Petitioner _ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (Related to M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 3-14-cv-01180) _ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. February 13, 2017 Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, McKEE and FUENTES, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: March 16, 2017) _ OPINION* _ PER CURIAM Alton D. Brown fil
Summary: RESUBMIT HLD-003 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 16-2749 _ IN RE: ALTON D. BROWN, Petitioner _ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (Related to M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 3-14-cv-01180) _ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. February 13, 2017 Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, McKEE and FUENTES, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: March 16, 2017) _ OPINION* _ PER CURIAM Alton D. Brown file..
More
RESUBMIT HLD-003 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 16-2749
___________
IN RE: ALTON D. BROWN,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(Related to M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 3-14-cv-01180)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
February 13, 2017
Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, McKEE and FUENTES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: March 16, 2017)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Alton D. Brown filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting that we direct the
District Court to rule on a request for an opportunity to appeal the District Court’s
dismissal order in Brown v. Lancaster, M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 3:14-cv-01180. The District
Court has since ruled on Brown’s filing. In light of the District Court’s action, the
question Brown presented is no longer a live controversy, so we will dismiss his
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
mandamus petition as moot. See, e.g., Lusardi v. Xerox Corp.,
975 F.2d 964, 974 (3d
Cir. 1992).
2