CLD-047 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 14-3643
___________
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. 2-02-cr-00073-011)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
November 25, 2014
Before: FUENTES, GREENAWAY, JR. and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: January 6, 2015)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Delgardo Scott is a former federal inmate. He initiated this mandamus
action by submitting to this Court a “Petition To Dismiss,” noting that he had filed in his
criminal case another Petition To Dismiss that had gone unanswered by the District
Court. Scott since has filed a “Petition For Writ Of Mandamus By Affidavit,” again
noting the District Court’s failure to rule on his petition to dismiss and requesting us to
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.
compel a ruling. In addition, Scott has filed another Petition For Writ Of Mandamus By
Affidavit, this time asking us to direct the District Court to respond to his filing of an
Application For Payment Of Unclaimed Funds, and to compel the return of the $5,000.00
cash bond that he posted in his criminal case in April 2002.
Concerning Scott’s mandamus requests relating to the Petition To Dismiss filed in
his criminal case, the record reflects that the District Court denied that petition on August
22, 2014. Those requests are moot in light of the District Court’s ruling. See County of
Morris v. Nationalist Movement, 273 F.3d 527, 533 (3d Cir. 2001). Because the District
Court has adjudicated Scott’s petition, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus
to the extent that Scott seeks our intervention. See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp.,
77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996). To the extent that Scott may be objecting to the
District Court’s ruling on his petition to dismiss, 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).
As for Scott’s request concerning his Application For Payment Of Unclaimed
Funds in his criminal case, Scott acknowledges in his petition to this Court that the
application was returned to him as undeliverable as addressed, and he furnishes a copy of
the returned mailing envelope that he had addressed to the attention of the District Court
“Finance Office.” Indeed, the docket entries for his criminal case do not reflect that
Scott’s application was ever received or filed, and Scott does not allege that he made any
attempt to rectify his errant mailing or otherwise notify the District Court of his
2
application. Because Scott has failed to show that he has no other adequate means of
obtaining the relief he seeks, and that he has a “clear and indisputable” right to issuance
of the writ, we decline to mandamus relief on this request. See Haines v. Liggett Group,
Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 89 (3d Cir. 1992) (citing Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U.S.
394, 403 (1976)).
Based on the foregoing, we will deny Scott’s petition for a writ of mandamus.
3