Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
12-17-2007
In Re: Jarvis
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-4270
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"In Re: Jarvis " (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 52.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/52
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 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
HLD-22 (November 2007) NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
__________
No. 07-4270
___________
IN RE: KITSON B. JARVIS,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
District Court of the Virgin Islands
(Related to Civ. No. 06-cv-00031)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
November 16, 2007
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges
(Filed December 17, 2007)
___________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM.
On February 22, 2006, pro se petitioner, Kitson B. Jarvis, filed a petition for writ
of habeas corpus in the District Court of the Virgin Islands. Three months later, Jarvis
filed a motion for an order to show cause why relief should not be granted. On November
7, 2007, when over a year had gone by without any action in his case, Jarvis filed the
present petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the District Court to rule upon
his petition.
By order entered December 11, 2007, the District Court entered an order
1
dismissing Jarvis’s habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction. Because Jarvis has now
received the relief he sought in filing his mandamus petition—namely, a ruling on his
habeas corpus petition—we will deny his mandamus petition as moot.
2