In re: Raymond Chestnut


NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: SMITH, Chief Judge, MCKEE and RENDELL, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 2. HLD-011

Download PDF
Case: 17-2859 Document: 003112778796 Page: 1 HLD-011 Date Filed: 11/15/2017 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 17-2859 ___________ IN RE: RAYMOND EDWARD CHESTNUT, Petitioner ____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (Related to M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 3:16-cv-00097) ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. September 28, 2017 Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, MCKEE and RENDELL, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: November 15, 2017) _________ OPINION* _________ PER CURIAM Raymond Chestnut filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting that we direct the District Court to enter judgment on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition filed in Chestnut v. Ebbert, M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 3:16-cv-00097. The District Court has since terminated the case, effectively granting Chestnut’s motion for voluntary dismissal. In light of the District * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Case: 17-2859 Document: 003112778796 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/15/2017 Court’s action, the question Chestnut presented is no longer a live controversy, so we will dismiss his mandamus petition as moot. See, e.g., Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 975 F.2d 964, 974 (3d Cir. 1992). 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?