HLD-019 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 25-2440 ___________ IN RE: DAVID H. PINCKNEY, Petitioner ____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Related to D.N.J. Civ. Nos. 3:23-cv-22563, 3:23-cv-22645, 3:23-cv-22646) ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. August 28, 2025 Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, HARDIMAN and PORTER, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed December 4, 2025) _________ OPINION* _________ PER CURIAM Pro se petitioner David Henry Pinckney has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. For the reasons below, we will dismiss the petition as moot.

In November 2023, Pinckney filed three separate complaints in the District of New Jersey (Civ. No. 3:23-cv-22563, Civ. No. 3:23-cv-22645, and Civ. No. 3:23-cv-

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.

22646) raising fraud, trespass, and kidnapping claims stemming from his arrest for nonpayment of child support. Along with the complaints, Pinckney submitted applications to proceed in forma pauperis. On July 30, 2025, Pinckney filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting that we direct the District Court to rule on his applications to proceed in forma pauperis.

On September 12, 2025, in all three matters, the District Court granted Pinckney’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed his complaint. As the applications at issue have been decided by the District Court, Pinckney’s request is now moot. See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698–99 (3d Cir. 1996) (noting that “[i]f 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.”).

Accordingly, we will dismiss the petition for a writ of mandamus as moot.