ALD-238
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 11-2068
___________
IN RE: LOUIS WATLEY,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Related to D.N.J. Civ. No. 2-10-cv-05086)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
July 14, 2011
Before: SCIRICA, HARDIMAN and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: August 1, 2011)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Louis Watley seeks a writ of mandamus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651, directing
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to rule on his habeas
corpus petition. Subsequent to the filing of this mandamus petition, however, the District
Court dismissed Watley’s habeas petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state
remedies.1 Accordingly, to the extent Watley seeks to have this Court order the District
1
Watley’s appeal of that decision is pending before this Court. See CA No. 11-2808.
Court to rule on the habeas petition, his mandamus petition will be denied 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 . . . prevent a court from being
able to grant the requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot.”). And to the
extent Watley requests that we “declare” as “arbitrary, capricious, and [an] abuse of
power” the District Court’s seven-month delay in adjudicating the habeas petition, that
request is denied; mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal. See In re Chambers Dev.
Co., 148 F.3d 214, 226 (3d Cir. 1998).
2