BLD-309 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 18-2654 ___________

In re: CHARLES E. SMITH, Petitioner ____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (Related to Civ. No. 1-17-cv-02339) ____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. September 13, 2018

Before: RESTREPO, BIBAS and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: September 21, 2018) _________

OPINION* _________

PER CURIAM

Pro se petitioner Charles Smith has filed a petition for writ of mandamus

requesting that we direct the United States District Court for the Middle District of

Pennsylvania to rule on his

petition. However, on March 23, 2018—

months before Smith filed this mandamus petition—the District Court dismissed the

§ 2241 petition. Smith thus has not shown an “injury in fact” that will likely “be

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. redressed by a favorable decision” from this Court, Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife,

, 560–61 (1992) (quotation marks omitted), and we will therefore dismiss his petition

for lack of jurisdiction.1

1 Smith’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis and to be relieved from filing his prison- account statement are granted. 2