Third Circuit disposition — 144426np-pdf

RESUBMIT HLD-001 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 14-4426
___________
IN RE: MYCHAEL SAUNDERS,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Related to D.C. Crim. Action No. 2:08-cr-00165-001)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
December 11, 2014
Before: MCKEE, GARTH and BARRY, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: June 16, 2015)
___________
OPINION*
___________
PER CURIAM
Pro se petitioner Mychael Saunders filed a petition for a writ of mandamus,
seeking to compel the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
* 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
Pennsylvania to rule on his motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Thereafter, on April 15, 2015, the District Court entered an order ruling on Saunders’s
§ 2255 motion. In light of the District Court’s action, the case before us is no longer a
live controversy, so we will dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus as moot. See, e.g.,
Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 975 F.2d 964, 974 (3d Cir. 1992); see also 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.”

-- 2 of 2 --