DLD-231 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 15-1358
___________
IN RE: CURTIS MARSHALL DIXON,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from
the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Related to E.D. Pa. No. 2:00-cr-00146)
District Judge: James Knoll Gardner
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
June 4, 2015
Before: FISHER, SHWARTZ and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: June 10, 2015)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Curtis Marshall Dixon, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a
petition for writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651, alleging extraordinary delay
in the adjudication of his motion for a writ of error coram nobis by the United States
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in E.D. Pa. No. 2:00-cr-00146.
Thereafter, on March 17, 2015, the District Court denied the motion. Dixon sought a
certificate of appealability, which the District Court also denied. Because the motion has
been resolved by the District Court, Dixon has received the relief he sought from this
Court, and we will dismiss the mandamus petition 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 eliminate a plaintiff’s personal stake in the outcome of a suit
or prevent a court from being able to grant the requested relief, the case must be
dismissed as moot.”)
2