in Re: Steven Dineen v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 3d Cir. 1996 “If developments occur…

1
RESUBMIT HLD-010 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 12-2956
___________
IN RE: STEVEN DINEEN,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
(Related to Del. Crim. No. 08-cr-00098 and Civ. No. 09-cv-951)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
September 20, 2012
Before: McKEE, Chief Judge and ALDISERT and GARTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: October 2, 2012)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Steven Dineen filed this pro se mandamus petition requesting that we direct the
District Court to act on his pending § 2255 motion. Subsequent to that filing, however,
the District Court issued an order dismissing the § 2255 motion. Dineen’s request for a
writ of mandamus is, therefore, moot. See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d
690, 698–99 (3d Cir. 1996) (“If developments occur during the course of adjudication

-- 1 of 2 --

2
that . . . prevent a court from being able to grant the requested relief, the case must be
dismissed as moot.”); see also In re Austrian, German Holocaust Litigation, 250 F.3d
156, 162-63 (2d Cir. 2001) (mandamus petition requesting that the court of appeals
compel district court action generally may be dismissed as moot upon the district court’s
entry of a final order).
Accordingly, we will dismiss this petition for writ of mandamus.

-- 2 of 2 --