Ralph Reed v., No. 19-1615 (3d Cir. 2019)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 19-1615 ___________ In re: RALPH REED, Petitioner ____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Related to D. Del. Civ. No. 1:06-cv-00445) District Judge: Honorable Leonard P. Stark ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. May 23, 2019 Before: CHAGARES, RESTREPO, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: August 2, 2019) _________ OPINION* _________ PER CURIAM Convicted by a Delaware jury of murder and a related weapons offense, Ralph Reed is serving a sentence of life plus twenty years in prison. Reed’s challenges in federal court to his convictions have thus far been unsuccessful. See, e.g., C.A. No. 081330 (3d Cir. Apr. 9, 2008) (denying certificate of appealability request relative to * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. District Court’s dismissal of Reed’s federal habeas petition on timeliness grounds); C.A. No. 12-3769 (3d Cir. Feb. 5, 2013) (denying certificate of appealability request relative to District Court’s denial of reconsideration of its timeliness ruling). Presently, Reed has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. In his petition, Reed states that “this writ is to compel the district court to act, by ruling on his June 2, 2018, motion” to amend the District Court’s habeas judgment. Pet. at 2.1 The referenced motion to amend (ECF 58), however, has since been denied by the District Court. See ECF 69-70.2 Reed’s mandamus petition is thus moot and will be dismissed. See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 699-700 (3d Cr. 1996). 1 It appears that, prior to the filing of this mandamus petition, the Clerk of the District Court mistakenly construed Reed’s June 2, 2018 motion as a memorandum of law in support of an already-adjudicated motion for reconsideration. See Pet. at 24. Reed has appealed the District Court’s March 26, 2019 order. That appeal is pending in this Court. See C.A. 19-2007. 2 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.