BLD-069 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 18-3834 ___________

In re: COREY LANE, Petitioner ____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Related to Civ. No. 2-16-cv-08948) ____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. January 10, 2019

Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE and PORTER, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: January 23, 2019) ___________ OPINION* ___________ PER CURIAM

Pro se petitioner Corey Lane has filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting

that we direct the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to rule on

separate motions for default judgment that he allegedly filed on May 1 and 3, 2018. He

previously filed a nearly identical mandamus petition asking for the same relief. We

denied the petition, explaining that the District Court had already denied the May 1, 2018

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. motion and that there was no indication that Lane had filed a second motion on May 3,

2018. See In re Lane,

(3d Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (non-precedential

opinion). We reach the same conclusion here. Lane has already obtained the requested

ruling on the May 1, 2018 motion, and if he “believes that the failure to docket his May 3

motion was in error (despite the District Court’s order denying his motion for entry of

default judgment, see Dkt. #103), he may raise that issue in the District Court.”

.1 Accordingly, we will deny Lane’s mandamus petition.

1 We note that the District Court has promptly ruled on Lane’s sundry filings in this case, and we have twice affirmed the Court’s orders denying his requests for injunctive relief. See Lane v. New Jersey, -- F. App’x ---,

(3d Cir. Oct. 10, 2018) (per curiam) (non-precedential opinion); Lane v. New Jersey,

(3d Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (non-precedential opinion). 2