Third Circuit disposition — 183403np-pdf

AMENDED HLD-003 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 18-3403
___________
IN RE: JOHN DOUGLAS PARKER,
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. Crim. No. 5:08-cr-00534-001)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
December 27, 2018
Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, AMBRO and ROTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: July 12, 2019)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Federal prisoner John Douglas Parker filed a pro se mandamus petition, asking us
to direct the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to rule on
his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion, which he had filed in January 2018 in
* 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
connection with his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings. Parker subsequently filed two more
mandamus-related documents in our Court.1 It appeared from those documents that he was
under the mistaken impression that we had already issued a writ of mandamus in this case,
and he asked that we either enforce that writ or grant him permission to petition our Court
or the United States Supreme Court to rule on his Rule 60(b) motion.
On July 9, 2019, we entered an order that (1) directed the Government and invited
the District Court to respond to Parker’s mandamus petition, and (2) stated that Parker’s
mandamus filings would be held in abeyance pending the response(s). That same day, the
District Court denied his Rule 60(b) motion. Because Parker has now obtained the relief
that he seeks in this mandamus action — a ruling on his Rule 60(b) motion — we hereby
vacate our July 9, 2019 order, and we will dismiss his mandamus petition and his two
related filings 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.”).
1 The first document was titled “Enforcement of Original Writ of Mandamus,” and the
second was titled “Second Request for a Writ of Mandamus.”

-- 2 of 2 --