In re: David James Ward

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: CHAGARES, VANASKIE and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 2. DLD-027

Case: 16-3932

Document: 003112471553

Page: 1

DLD-027

Date Filed: 11/23/2016

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 16-3932
___________
IN RE: DAVID JAMES WARD,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Related to D.N.J. Civ. No. 2-16-cv-04101)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
October 27, 2016
Before: CHAGARES, VANASKIE and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: November 23, 2016)
_________
OPINION*
_________

PER CURIAM
In July 2016, David James Ward filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in
the District of New Jersey. In September 2016, Ward filed a motion for summary
judgment. By order and opinion entered on October 18, 2016, the District Court
dismissed Ward’s § 2255 motion for lack of jurisdiction, and declined to issue a

*

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

Case: 16-3932

Document: 003112471553

Page: 2

Date Filed: 11/23/2016

certificate of appealability. Ward now seeks a writ of mandamus, directing the District
Court to rule on his motion for summary judgment. Because the District Court has
already dismissed Ward’s § 2255 motion, we will deny as moot his petition for a writ of
mandamus. See In re Austrian & German Holocaust Litig., 250 F.3d 156, 162-63 (2d
Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (mandamus petition requesting that court of appeals compel
district court action generally may be dismissed as moot upon district court’s entry of
final order).

constitute binding precedent.
2