In re: Alton D. Brown

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: KRAUSE, SCIRICA and FUENTES, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 2. BLD-385

Case: 16-1546

Document: 003112404630

Page: 1

BLD-385

Date Filed: 09/12/2016

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 16-1546
___________
IN RE: ALTON D. BROWN,
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. 2-14-cv-05762)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
August 18, 2016
Before: KRAUSE, SCIRICA and FUENTES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: September 12, 2016)
_________
OPINION *
_________

PER CURIAM
In March 2016, Alton Brown, a Pennsylvania prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a
petition for a writ of mandamus, requesting that we order the District Court to rule on his

*

This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

Case: 16-1546

Document: 003112404630

Page: 2

Date Filed: 09/12/2016

motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing his amended complaint without
prejudice and his motion to recuse in Brown v. Wetzel, E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 2:14-cv-05762.
However, the District Court ruled on those motions in February 2016, before Brown
submitted this petition. Apparently as a result of a prison transfer, Brown did not receive
the ruling when it was entered. 1
Because the District Court has ruled on Brown’s motions and he has received the
mandamus relief he requested, his mandamus petition is moot. See, e.g., Blanciak v.
Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996). Accordingly, we will
dismiss Brown’s mandamus petition.

1

The District Court recently resent the order to Brown at his current address when it
dismissed the action with prejudice.
2