Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
10-3-2008
In Re: Alton D. Brown
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 08-2683
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"In Re: Alton D. Brown " (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 412.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/412
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 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
Amended HLD-149 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-2683
___________
IN RE: ALTON D. BROWN,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Related to Civ. No. 08-cv-00743)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
August 29, 2008
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, ALDISERT and GARTH, Circuit Judges
(Filed: October 3, 2008)
_________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_________
PER CURIAM.
Alton Brown, an inmate incarcerated at a Pennsylvania correctional facility, filed a
complaint in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for relief from abuse and harassment by
prison staff. He alleged that the staff members retaliated against him for filing various
grievances and complaints. Brown also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and a motion requesting a temporary restraining order and a preliminary
injunction. His motion for leave to file in forma pauperis was docketed on February 15,
2008, and his “amended” motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction was docketed on March 18, 2008. On April 10, 2008, he filed a request to the
District Court asking it to rule on his motions. Brown then petitioned this Court for a writ
of mandamus ordering that the District Court act on his pending motions.1
The District Court has now entered an order denying with prejudice Brown’s
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and it ordered the Clerk to administratively
terminate the action without filing Brown’s amended complaint or other documents.
Because the District Court has now provided Brown the relief he sought in his mandamus
petition to this Court, i.e., a ruling on his petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
and other pending motions, we will deny his amended mandamus petition as moot.
1
The Court has the benefit of reviewing Brown’s original and amended petitions
for writ of mandamus.
2