In re: Dennis Jacob



Download PDF
Case: 17-2630 Document: 003112738315 Page: 1 *AMENDED HLD-008 Date Filed: 09/28/2017 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 17-2630 ___________ IN RE: DENNIS JACOBS, Petitioner ____________________________________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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?