Third Circuit disposition — 243327np-pdf

*AMENDED DLD-058 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 24-3327
___________
IN RE: CALEB L. MCGILLVARY,
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. No. 1:23-cv-22605)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
January 2, 2025
Before: RESTREPO, FREEMAN, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: June 17, 2025)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
In November 2023, in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, Caleb McGillvary filed suit against multiple defendants, accusing them of being
part of a bid-rigging syndicate involved in racketeering activities, money laundering, and
other offenses. After he amended his complaint, many defendants moved to dismiss it,
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
including a group of defendants whom we will call the State Defendants for
convenience.1
In a mandamus petition that he filed in this Court, McGillvary asserted that he
submitted his response in opposition to the State Defendants’ motion (which was filed at
ECF No. 193) in September 2024, but it had not yet been filed on the District Court’s
docket. He explained how he tried, without success, to have that brief filed, and he is
right that a letter he submitted to address the issue was misfiled as his opposition brief.
He asked us to issue a writ of mandamus to order the District Court to file the opposition
brief.
After he filed his mandamus petition, McGillvary’s brief was filed on the District
Court docket. See ECF No. 328. In light of this event, there is no longer relief to grant,
and his mandamus petition no longer presents a live controversy. Accordingly, we will
dismiss it as 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”).
1 On December 23, 2024, the District Court granted many of the motions to dismiss, but
it did not rule on the State Defendants’ motion.

-- 2 of 2 --