Opinion
No. 20-1129
04-29-2020
IN RE: STUART J. PROPER, Petitioner
BLD-166
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(Related to W.D. Pa. Civ. No. 1:17-cv-00208) Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
April 16, 2020
Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, Jr., and BIBAS, 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.
In March 2020, Pennsylvania state prisoner Stuart Proper, proceeding pro se, filed an amended petition for a writ of mandamus, asking us to direct United States Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lanzillo to rule on Proper's pending habeas petition. On April 9, 2020, Magistrate Judge Lanzillo, who was presiding over the matter with the consent of the parties, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), entered an order denying that habeas petition. Because Proper has now obtained the relief that he seeks in his amended mandamus petition, we will dismiss this amended petition 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.").
Proper submitted his original mandamus petition to us in January 2020. No action was taken on the petition at that time because he had not provided a copy to Magistrate Judge Lanzillo. See Fed. R. App. P. 21(a)(1) (setting forth this requirement). Instead of curing this defect, Proper elected to file an amended mandamus petition (he told the Clerk of this Court to disregard his original petition), and he duly provided Magistrate Judge Lanzillo with a copy of this amended petition.