HLD-002 (Revised) NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 17-3491
___________
In re: DANIEL ARTHUR HELEVA,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for Middle District of Pennsylvania
(Related to M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 1-07-cv-01398)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
November 30, 2017
Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, CHAGARES and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: February 16, 2018)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Daniel Heleva, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to
compel the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to expedite
his habeas proceedings. On January 9, 2018, the District Court denied Heleva’s amended
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
habeas petition. To the extent Heleva has obtained the relief he sought, his mandamus
petition is moot. Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996).
To the extent Heleva seeks release from prison based on the merits of the claim he
raised in his amended habeas petition, mandamus relief is not available because Heleva
had other adequate means to obtain the desired relief via his amended habeas petition and
he can pursue his claim on appeal. See In re Patenaude, 210 F.3d 135, 141 (2000).
Similarly, to the extent Heleva seeks mandamus relief in connection with motions he filed
in District Court that were not addressed in the District Court’s decision denying habeas
relief, Heleva moved the District Court to review these motions and filed a notice of appeal
and thus has other adequate means to obtain relief.
Accordingly, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.1
1
Heleva’s motion to strike Respondent’s response filed November 27, 2017, which may be
construed as a response to the mandamus petition, is denied. To the extent the response
may be construed as requesting reconsideration of the Clerk’s Order granting Heleva in
forma pauperis status, the request is denied.
2