*AMENDED DLD-197 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 13-1592
___________
IN RE: DELGARDO SCOTT,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(Related to W.D. Pa. Crim. No. 02-cr-00073)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
April 18, 2013
Before: AMBRO, SMITH and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: July 11, 2013)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Delgardo Scott is a federal inmate. He has filed a petition for writ of
mandamus, dated February 27, 2013, asking us to compel the District Court to issue a ruling on
the motion to dismiss that he filed in his criminal case. Scott identified the motion to dismiss
by certified mail number, and the record shows that the motion was signed and mailed on
October 24, 2012, and filed on the docket on October 26, 2012.
Scott already has received the relief he seeks in his mandamus petition, as the District
Court denied the motion to dismiss by order entered November 8, 2012. Thus, the matter is
1
moot. See County of Morris v. Nationalist Movement, 273 F.3d 527, 533 (3d Cir. 2001).
Because the District Court has adjudicated Scott’s motion, and there is no need for our
intervention, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. See Blanciak v. Allegheny
Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996).1
1
Within this mandamus action, Scott has also filed documents, including Petitions To
Dismiss, in which he seeks, among other things, dismissal of his criminal proceedings and
immediate release from incarceration. We decline to rule on these documents. To the extent
that he wishes to pursue a collateral attack on the judgment and sentence in his criminal case,
he must pursue such relief in the District Court. Insofar as Scott may be objecting to the
District Court’s ruling on his motion to dismiss filed in District Court, it is not appropriate for
us to issue relief via mandamus in lieu of an appeal. See, e.g., In re Baldwin, 700 F.3d 122,
127 (3d Cir. 2012); In re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 353 F.3d 211, 219 (3d Cir. 2003).
2