AMENDED HLD-007 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 19-2631
___________
IN RE: TERRELLE NELSON,
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. 1-17-cv-05083)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
August 8, 2019
Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, AMBRO and ROTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: October 3, 2019)
_________
OPINION *
_________
PER CURIAM
Terrelle Nelson filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the District
Court to rule on the proceedings relating to his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct
sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. By opinion and separate order entered September
6, 2019, the District Court denied Nelson’s § 2255 motion, and dismissed as moot the
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
pending motions. In light of the District Court’s action, this mandamus petition no longer
presents a live controversy. Therefore, we will dismiss it as moot. See Blanciak v.
Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996) (“If developments occur
during the course of adjudication that eliminate a plaintiff’s personal stake in the outcome
of a suit or prevent a court from being able to grant the requested relief, the case must be
dismissed as moot.”).
After the District Court ruled, Nelson submitted a “Supplemental Memorandum in
Support of Writ of Mandamus” in which he essentially challenges the District Court’s
disposition of his § 2255 claims and related motions. To the extent that he presents an
additional argument for mandamus relief, we decline to grant relief because mandamus
may not be used as a substitute for an appeal. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig.,
418 F.3d 372, 378-79 (3d Cir. 2005).
Because it appears from the “Supplemental Memorandum” that Nelson is
expressing an intention to appeal, the Clerk of Court is directed to forward the document
to the Clerk of the District Court for the District of New Jersey to be treated as a notice
of appeal from the District Court order entered September 6, 2019, in D.N.J. Civ. No. 1-
17-cv-05083. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 3.4. We note that the document was placed in prison
mail on September 17, 2019, and should be docketed as of that date.
2