In re: Raymond Chestnut
Filing
NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: SMITH, Chief Judge, MCKEE and RENDELL, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 2. HLD-011
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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?