Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
3-10-2008
In Re:Alfred Flowers
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-4657
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"In Re:Alfred Flowers " (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1464.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1464
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.
BLD-101 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-4657
___________
IN RE: ALFRED FLOWERS,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Related to 07-cv-02035)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
January 10, 2008
Before: MCKEE, RENDELL and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: March 10, 2008)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Pro se petitioner Alfred Flowers is confined at FCI Fairton in New Jersey.
On April 19, 2007, he filed a complaint, and, subsequently, furnished the District Court
with copies of a summons and civil complaint for service upon each defendant in the
action. After a few months of inactivity in the District Court, Flowers filed the instant
petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the court to order the clerk to serve the
summons and complaint to each defendant. However, on January 2, 2008, the District
Court issued an order directing that service of process be initiated upon the defendants.
On January 3, 2008, the Clerk issued copies of the summons and complaint to each
defendant. Because Flowers has now received the relief he sought in filing his mandamus
petition, we will deny his mandamus petition as moot.
2