Filed: Nov. 06, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: *REVISED HLD-008 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 18-2907 _ IN RE: CARL ANTHONY BARNETT, Petitioner _ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the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. 3-16-cv-07940) _ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. September 20, 2018 Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, CHAGARES and BIBAS, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: November 6, 2018) _ OPINION * _ PER CURIAM Pro se petitioner,
Summary: *REVISED HLD-008 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 18-2907 _ IN RE: CARL ANTHONY BARNETT, Petitioner _ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the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. 3-16-cv-07940) _ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. September 20, 2018 Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, CHAGARES and BIBAS, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: November 6, 2018) _ OPINION * _ PER CURIAM Pro se petitioner, ..
More
*REVISED
HLD-008 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 18-2907
___________
IN RE: CARL ANTHONY BARNETT,
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. 3-16-cv-07940)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
September 20, 2018
Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, CHAGARES and BIBAS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: November 6, 2018)
_________
OPINION *
_________
PER CURIAM
Pro se petitioner, Carl Anthony Barnett, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the
District Court to rule on a motion he filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In an Opinion
and an Order entered on October 3, 2018, the District Court denied the motion and
declined to issue Barnett a certificate of appealability. In light of the District Court’s
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding
precedent.
action, this mandamus petition no longer presents a live controversy. Therefore, we will
dismiss it as moot. See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp.,
77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d
Cir. 1996) (“If developments occur during the course of adjudication that eliminate a
plaintiff’s personal stake in the outcome of a suit or prevent a court from being able to
grant the requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot.”).
If Barnett wishes to seek appellate review of the District Court’s adverse decision
with respect to his § 2255 motion, he should file his notice of appeal in the District Court
within the time period set forth in Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B).
2