OPINION

Robert Hayden, proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to act on the motion that he filed in this matter in August 2003, which he styled as a Rule 60(b) motion. 1

Mandamus is an appropriate remedy only in the most extraordinary of situations. In re Pasquariello, 16 F.3d 525, 528 (3d Cir. 1994). To warrant such a remedy, a petitioner must show that he has (I) no other adequate means of obtaining the desired relief and (ii) a “clear and indisputable” right to issuance of the writ. See Haines v. Liggett Group, Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 89 (3d Cir. 1992) (citing Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976)).

Hayden’s motion was pending at the time he filed this mandamus petition. However, the District Court denied Hayden’s motion by order entered August 3, 2005. Thus, the request for relief before us is now moot.

Accordingly, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.