Opinions of the United
2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
4-17-2009
Hector Huertas v. City of Camden
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 09-1050
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009
Recommended Citation
"Hector Huertas v. City of Camden" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1520.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1520
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 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
DLD-143 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 09-1050
IN RE: HECTOR L. HUERTAS,
Petitioner
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Related to D.N.J. Civ. No. 06-cv-04676)
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
March 26, 2009
Before: BARRY, AMBRO and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: April 17, 2009)
OPINION
PER CURIAM
Hector Huertas, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus
seeking to compel the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to
decide several motions in his action against the City of Camden, the City of Camden
Police Department, Officer Warren Brown, and Juan Andino (the “Defendants”). We
will deny the mandamus petition.
Huertas filed a complaint in District Court against the Defendants alleging that
they had prevented him from visiting his mother. Andino, who lives with Huertas’s
mother, allegedly called the police when Huertas arrived at the house to visit her, and
Officer Brown directed Huertas to leave. Huertas sought a temporary restraining order
and injunctive relief.
In June 2008, Huertas filed a motion and an amended motion for default judgment
against the municipal defendants based on their alleged failure to abide by a court
scheduling order and other alleged discovery violations. Huertas also filed a motion for
leave to file a second amended motion for default judgment. In November 2008, Huertas
wrote the District Court, requesting a ruling on his motions. In January 2009, Huertas
filed the present petition for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order compelling the District
Court to decide his motions.
Shortly after the filing of Huertas’s mandamus petition, the Magistrate Judge
dismissed without prejudice Huertas’s motion and amended motion for default judgment,
and granted Huertas’s motion for leave to file a second amended motion for default
judgment to the extent that he sought leave to file a second amended motion. In light of
the Magistrate Judge’s order, Huertas’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to
compel the District Court to rule upon these motions is now moot. Huertas’s additional
requests that we vacate a scheduled pre-trial conference and stay the trial pending the
disposition of his motions are also moot.
2
Accordingly, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.1
1
Huertas subsequently filed a second amended motion for default judgment, which the
District Court denied. Pre-trial proceedings are continuing.
3