BLD-035 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 12-3654
___________
IN RE: ROGEL GRANT,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Related to D.C. Crim. No. 2:04-cr-00749-001)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
November 8, 2012
Before: SCIRICA, HARDIMAN and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: November 28, 2012)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
On or around September 17, 2012, federal prisoner Rogel Grant filed a pro se
petition for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order from this Court directing the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to appoint him counsel and
rule on two motions that were pending in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings. One of
those motions sought to stay his § 2255 proceedings, and the other requested
reconsideration of the District Court’s April 2012 order denying him a new trial.
On September 25, 2012, the District Court entered an order denying the
aforementioned motions. That same day, the District Court entered a separate order
denying Grant’s § 2255 motion and directing the District Court Clerk to close the case.
Because Grant has received a ruling on his motions and his § 2255 action is now closed,
we will deny his mandamus petition 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 . . . prevent a court from being able to grant the requested relief, the case
must be dismissed as moot.”).
2