Third Circuit disposition — 084443np-pdf

DLD-47 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 08-4443
___________
IN RE: PAUL ANDREW MITCHELL,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Related to D.C. Civil No. 08-cv-04083)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
December 4, 2008
Before: BARRY, AMBRO and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed on December 22, 2008)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Paul Andrew Mitchell filed this pro se mandamus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1651 seeking an order that the District Court immediately rule upon his motion to
intervene in a lawsuit brought to enjoin then-Senator Barack Obama from running for
President of the United States. For the reason that follows, we will deny the petition.
On September 18, 2008, Mitchell filed an “Application for Leave to Intervene and

-- 1 of 2 --

for a Writ in the Nature of a Prohibition” in the aforementioned lawsuit. The District
Court dismissed the amended complaint in that case on October 27, 2008, for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted pursuant to subsections (b)(1) and (6), respectively, of Rule 12 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. In a separate order entered on the same day, the District Court
dismissed as moot all pending motions in the case. Mitchell filed his petition for a writ of
mandamus with this Court on November 6, 2008.
As the District Court has already done what Mitchell seeks to have this Court order
it to do – rule on his motion to intervene – Mitchell’s petition is moot. See In re Surrick,
338 F.3d 224, 229-30 (3d Cir. 2003) (discussing constitutional and prudential dimensions
of mootness and noting that “the central question of all mootness problems is whether
changes in circumstances that prevailed at the beginning of the litigation have forestalled
any occasion for meaningful relief.”). Accordingly, we will deny his petition for a writ of
mandamus.
2

-- 2 of 2 --