in Re: Russell Robinson v. Hendricks, 395 F.3d 173, 184 3d Cir. 2005 granting the United States’ pretrial appeal

HPS-73 (April 2005) NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-2070
________________
IN RE: RUSSELL ROBINSON,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
District Court of the Virgin Islands
(Related to D.V.I. Crim. No. 04-cr-00005-2)
_____________________________________
Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. Pro.
April 29, 2005
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges
Filed: May 27, 2005
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM.
Russell Robinson asks that we issue a writ of mandamus directing the
District Court to rule on his habeas petition seeking pretrial release. We will deny
Robinson’s request for mandamus relief as moot.
Robinson is detained pending the resolution of federal criminal charges.
See United States v. Hendricks, 395 F.3d 173, 184 (3d Cir. 2005) (granting the United
States’ pretrial appeal and remanding for further proceedings). On March 3, 2005, the
District Court filed Robinson’s pro se habeas petition, which—among other

-- 1 of 2 --

The District Court entered the denial of Robinson’s habeas petition on both the1
criminal docket, D.V.I. Crim No. 04-cr-00005, and under a newly created civil number,
D.V.I. Civ. No. 05-cv-00025. The District Court’s order expressly denied relief to the
extent that Robinson’s request could be construed as seeking “immediate release from
detention, modification of the ‘no bail’ condition, or dismissal of the indictment.”
Order, 1.
things—alleged an illegal arrest and prosecutorial misconduct. When Robinson filed his
mandamus petition in this court on April 6, 2005, the District Court had not yet acted on
his habeas petition. Two days later, however, the District Court denied Robinson’s
request. Accordingly, inasmuch as Robinson has now received what he requested (i.e, a1
ruling by the District Court), his mandamus petition is moot. See, e.g., In re Orthopedic
Bone Screw Pros. Liab. Litig., 94 F.3d 110, 111 (3d Cir. 1996) (on mootness).
For the foregoing reasons, we will deny Robinson’s mandamus petition.

-- 2 of 2 --