Opinion
No. 11-73427 D.C. No. 3:10-cv-01582-SI
01-09-2012
In re: EDWARD VINCENT RAY, Jr. EDWARD VINCENT RAY, Jr., Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent, MATTHEW CATE, Real Party in Interest.
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Northern District of California,
San Francisco
ORDER
Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
On December 6, 2011, the district court ruled on petitioner's pending motions relating to his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. To the extent that petitioner requests that this court compel the district court to rule on petitioner's pending motions, that request for relief is moot. To the extent petitioner requests that this court compel the district court to order the real party in interest, Matthew Cate, to answer his habeas corpus petition, petitioner has not demonstrated that this case warrants the intervention of this court by means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See Bauman v. United States Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977). Accordingly, the petition is denied.
The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as moot.
DENIED.