In re: Dennis Jacob

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: SMITH, MCKEE and RENDELL, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 2. HLD-008

Case: 17-2630

Document: 003112738315

Page: 1

*AMENDED
HLD-008

Date Filed: 09/28/2017

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 17-2630
___________
IN RE: DENNIS JACOBS,
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. 3-15-cv-04826)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
August 24, 2017

Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, MCKEE and RENDELL, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: September 28, 2017)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Pro se petitioner, Dennis Jacobs, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the District
Court to rule on a motion he filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In an Opinion and an
Order entered on September 15, 2017, the District Court denied the motion and declined
to issue Jacobs a certificate of appealability. In light of the District Court’s action, this

*

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

Case: 17-2630

Document: 003112738315

Page: 2

Date Filed: 09/28/2017

mandamus petition no longer presents a live controversy. Therefore, we will dismiss it 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.”).
If Jacobs wishes to seek appellate review of the District Court’s adverse decision
with respect to his § 2255 motion, he should file his notice of appeal in the District Court
within the time period set forth in Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B).

2