Third Circuit disposition — 163749np-pdf

ALD-026 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 16-3749
___________
IN RE: RICARDO HERASHIO GATES,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(Related to Civ. No. 02-cv-02262)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
October 27, 2016
Before: MCKEE, JORDAN and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: November 14, 2016 )
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Ricardo Gates has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order
directing the District Court to act on his motion filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b). For the reasons below, we will dismiss the petition.
In 2002, Gates filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state
court murder conviction. The District Court dismissed the claims as untimely and
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not

-- 1 of 2 --

2
procedurally defaulted. Although the District Court granted a certificate of appealability
on the issue of the procedural default, we concluded that the claims were untimely,
whether or not they were defaulted. See Gates v. Lavan, No. 03-1764, 116 F. App’x 340,
*2 (3d Cir. Oct. 21, 2004).
On December 29, 2014, Gates filed a Rule 60(b) motion seeking to reopen his
§ 2254 proceedings. He challenged the District Court’s previous determination that his
habeas claims were procedurally defaulted. On January 28, 2016, the District Court
denied the motion as without merit because the claims would still be untimely even if
they were not procedurally defaulted. On September 29, 2016, Gates, apparently
unaware that the District Court had already acted on his Rule 60(b) motion, filed this
mandamus petition complaining of undue delay by the District Court.
Because the District Court has resolved the motion for which Gates seeks a ruling,
there is no effective relief we can grant him, and his request is moot. See In re Cantwell,
639 F.2d 1050, 1053 (3d Cir. 1981) (“[A]n appeal will be dismissed as moot when events
occur during the pendency of the appeal which prevent the appellate court from granting
any effective relief.”). Accordingly, we will dismiss the mandamus petition as moot.
constitute binding precedent.

-- 2 of 2 --