Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
11-16-2006
In Re: James Riley
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-4004
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"In Re: James Riley " (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 186.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/186
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
HLD-6 (October 2006) NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 06-4004
________________
IN RE: JAMES RILEY,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
(Related to Civ. No. 06-cv-00001)
____________________________________
Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
October 13, 2006
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges.
(Filed November 15, 2006)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Pro se petitioner James Riley seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware to rule immediately on his motion for
preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order filed July 18, 2006.1
1
Petitioner seeks an order directing the District Court to grant his preliminary
injunction/temporary restraining order. Because such relief is beyond the scope of the
relief available under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), we construe the petition instead, as seeking an
On October 27, 2006, the District Court entered an order denying Riley’s motion
for preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order. Because Riley has now received
the relief he sought in filing his mandamus petition – a ruling on that motion– we will
deny his mandamus petition as moot.
order that directs the District Court to rule immediately on the motion for preliminary
injunction/temporary restraining order.
2