Opinion
No. 18-3603
01-25-2019
IN RE: ANTHONY FLETCHER, Petitioner
DLD-077
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Related to E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 2:10-cv-03188) Submitted Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 21
January 17, 2019 Before: JORDAN, GREENAWAY, JR. and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges OPINION PER CURIAM
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. --------
Pro se petitioner Anthony Fletcher seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the District Court to hold a hearing on a motion he filed regarding his appointed counsel in his underlying habeas proceedings in the District Court. Fletcher filed his mandamus petition in November 2018. By order entered December 3, 2018, the District Court denied his motion. In light of the District Court's action, Fletcher's request regarding his now-resolved motion is moot.
To the extent that Fletcher vaguely seeks "reassignment in the alternative," see Mandamus Petition at ECF p. 3, he has not demonstrated his entitlement to the extraordinary remedy of mandamus relief. See Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam) ("Before a writ of mandamus may issue, a party must establish that (1) no other adequate means [exist] to attain the relief he desires, (2) the party's right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable, and (3) the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.") (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, we will dismiss Fletcher's petition.