In Re: Steven Dineen v., No. 12-2956 (3d Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RESUBMIT HLD-010 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 12-2956 ___________ IN RE: STEVEN DINEEN, Petitioner ____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Related to Del. Crim. No. 08-cr-00098 and Civ. No. 09-cv-951) ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. September 20, 2012 Before: McKEE, Chief Judge and ALDISERT and GARTH, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: October 2, 2012) _________ OPINION _________ PER CURIAM Steven Dineen filed this pro se mandamus petition requesting that we direct the District Court to act on his pending § 2255 motion. Subsequent to that filing, however, the District Court issued an order dismissing the § 2255 motion. Dineen s request for a writ of mandamus is, therefore, moot. See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698 99 (3d Cir. 1996) ( If developments occur during the course of adjudication 1 that . . . prevent a court from being able to grant the requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot. ); see also In re Austrian, German Holocaust Litigation, 250 F.3d 156, 162-63 (2d Cir. 2001) (mandamus petition requesting that the court of appeals compel district court action generally may be dismissed as moot upon the district court s entry of a final order). Accordingly, we will dismiss this petition for writ of mandamus. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
