Opinions of the United 2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

11-16-2006

In Re: James Riley Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 06-4004

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006

Recommended Citation "In Re: James Riley " (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 186. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/186

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 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HLD-6 (October 2006) NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

NO. 06-4004 ________________

IN RE: JAMES RILEY, Petitioner ____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Related to Civ. No. 06-cv-00001)

____________________________________ Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. October 13, 2006

Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges.

(Filed November 15, 2006)

_______________________

OPINION _______________________

PER CURIAM

Pro se petitioner James Riley seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the United

States District Court for the District of Delaware to rule immediately on his motion for

preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order filed July 18, 2006.1

1 Petitioner seeks an order directing the District Court to grant his preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order. Because such relief is beyond the scope of the relief available under

(a), we construe the petition instead, as seeking an On October 27, 2006, the District Court entered an order denying Riley’s motion

for preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order. Because Riley has now received

the relief he sought in filing his mandamus petition – a ruling on that motion– we will

deny his mandamus petition as moot.

order that directs the District Court to rule immediately on the motion for preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order.

2