Filed: Jan. 27, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: DLD-090 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 19-3992 _ IN RE: RAHMAN R. FULTON, Petitioner _ On Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Related to D.N.J. Crim. No. 2-13-cr-00261 & Civ. No. 2-18-cv-16526) _ Submitted Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 21 January 16, 2020 Before: RESTREPO, PORTER, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: January 27, 2020) _ OPINION* _ PER CURIAM Pro se petitioner Rahman
Summary: DLD-090 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 19-3992 _ IN RE: RAHMAN R. FULTON, Petitioner _ On Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Related to D.N.J. Crim. No. 2-13-cr-00261 & Civ. No. 2-18-cv-16526) _ Submitted Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 21 January 16, 2020 Before: RESTREPO, PORTER, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: January 27, 2020) _ OPINION* _ PER CURIAM Pro se petitioner Rahman F..
More
DLD-090 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 19-3992
___________
IN RE: RAHMAN R. FULTON,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Related to D.N.J. Crim. No. 2-13-cr-00261 & Civ. No. 2-18-cv-16526)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 21
January 16, 2020
Before: RESTREPO, PORTER, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: January 27, 2020)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Pro se petitioner Rahman Fulton seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the District
Court to rule on a motion he filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. By order entered on
January 13, 2020, the District Court denied his motion and declined to issue a certificate
of appealability. In light of the District Court’s action, Fulton’s mandamus petition no
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
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 Fulton wishes to seek appellate review of the District Court’s decision with
respect to his § 2255 motion, he should file a notice of appeal in the District Court within
the time period set forth in Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B).
2