BLD-098 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 14-4635
___________
IN RE: JERMAINE A. WILLIAMS,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Related to D.C. Civil No. 09-cv-01822)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
January 30, 2015
Before: AMBRO, JORDAN and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: February 4, 2015 )
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Jermaine A. Williams filed a petition for a writ of mandamus on
December 5, 2014. See Fed. R. App. P. 21. He requested that we either order the
District Court to render a decision on the remaining unadjudicated claims in his habeas
corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, or grant him habeas relief and order his release
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
from confinement. While his mandamus petition was pending, on January 22, 2015, the
District Court entered an opinion and an order that denied habeas relief on Williams’
remaining claims and dismissed his § 2254 petition with prejudice.
Because the District Court has now resolved Williams’ remaining claims, as he
requested, his mandamus petition must be dismissed as moot to the extent it was
predicated on delay by the District Court. See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77
F.3d 690, 698–99 (3d Cir. 1996). To the extent that Williams also asked this Court to
grant him substantive relief, such a request is denied, as it should be properly asserted in
an appeal. See In re Chambers Dev. Co., Inc., 148 F.3d 214, 226 (3d Cir. 1998) (noting
that “mandamus is not a substitute for appeal”).
Accordingly, for the reasons given, we will dismiss the petition for a writ of
mandamus in part and deny it in part.
2