In Re: Michael Ingalls, Jr. v., No. 18-2292 (3d Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

HLD-007 (Revised) NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 18-2292 ___________ In re: MICHAEL A. INGALLS, JR., Petitioner ____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Related to Civ. No. 1-15-cv-05495) ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. August 23, 2018 Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, CHAGARES and BIBAS, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: September 13, 2018) _________ OPINION * _________ PER CURIAM In June 2018, pro se petitioner Michael Ingalls filed a mandamus petition requesting that we direct the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to rule on his motion to vacate the Court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. However, after Ingalls filed his mandamus petition, the District Court entered an opinion and order * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. denying his motion. In light of the District Court’s action, this 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.”). 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.