Third Circuit disposition — 183603np-pdf

DLD-077 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 18-3603
___________
IN RE: ANTHONY FLETCHER,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Related to E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 2:10-cv-03188)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 21
January 17, 2019
Before: JORDAN, GREENAWAY, JR. and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: January 25, 2019)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Pro se petitioner Anthony Fletcher seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the
District Court to hold a hearing on a motion he filed regarding his appointed counsel in
his underlying habeas proceedings in the District Court. Fletcher filed his mandamus
petition in November 2018. By order entered December 3, 2018, the District Court
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
denied his motion. In light of the District Court’s action, Fletcher’s request regarding his
now-resolved motion is moot.
To the extent that Fletcher vaguely seeks “reassignment in the alternative,” see
Mandamus Petition at ECF p. 3, he has not demonstrated his entitlement to the
extraordinary remedy of mandamus relief. See Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183,
190 (2010) (per curiam) (“Before a writ of mandamus may issue, a party must establish
that (1) no other adequate means [exist] to attain the relief he desires, (2) the party’s right
to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable, and (3) the writ is appropriate under the
circumstances.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, we will dismiss
Fletcher’s petition.

-- 2 of 2 --