Daniel Heleva v., No. 17-3491 (3d Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
HLD-002 (Revised) NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 17-3491 ___________ In re: DANIEL ARTHUR HELEVA, Petitioner ____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for Middle District of Pennsylvania (Related to M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 1-07-cv-01398) ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. November 30, 2017 Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, CHAGARES and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: February 16, 2018) _________ OPINION* _________ PER CURIAM Daniel Heleva, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to expedite his habeas proceedings. On January 9, 2018, the District Court denied Heleva’s amended * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. habeas petition. To the extent Heleva has obtained the relief he sought, his mandamus petition is moot. Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996). To the extent Heleva seeks release from prison based on the merits of the claim he raised in his amended habeas petition, mandamus relief is not available because Heleva had other adequate means to obtain the desired relief via his amended habeas petition and he can pursue his claim on appeal. See In re Patenaude, 210 F.3d 135, 141 (2000). Similarly, to the extent Heleva seeks mandamus relief in connection with motions he filed in District Court that were not addressed in the District Court’s decision denying habeas relief, Heleva moved the District Court to review these motions and filed a notice of appeal and thus has other adequate means to obtain relief. Accordingly, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.1 1 Heleva’s motion to strike Respondent’s response filed November 27, 2017, which may be construed as a response to the mandamus petition, is denied. To the extent the response may be construed as requesting reconsideration of the Clerk’s Order granting Heleva in forma pauperis status, the request is denied. 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.
