in Re: Alberto Concepcion v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 3d Cir. 1996 “If developments occur…

CLD-043 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 19-3297
___________
IN RE: ALBERTO CONCEPCION,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Related to Crim. No. 99-cr-00753-001)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
November 14, 2019
Before: JORDAN, KRAUSE and MATEY, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: November 27, 2019)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Alberto Concepcion has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. For the reasons
below, we will deny the petition.
In his mandamus petition, filed on October 10, 2019, Concepcion seeks an order
directing the District Court to act on a motion he filed on May 7, 2019. Concepcion also
requests that the District Judge personally pay the filing fee for his mandamus petition.
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not

-- 1 of 2 --

2
By order entered October 16, 2019, the District Court denied Concepcion’s
motion. Thus, his request that we order the District Court to act on that motion is moot.
See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996) (“If
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.”).
With respect to his request that the District Judge personally pay his mandamus
filing fee, we will deny the petition. As a precondition to the issuance of the writ,
Concepcion must demonstrate, among other things, a clear and indisputable right to the
relief sought. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976). Concepcion cannot
show a clear and indisputable right to have the District Judge pay his filing fee1 or any
other costs. She is entitled to judicial immunity as her handling of Concepcion’s motion
was clearly a judicial act. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355-56 (1978) (judges
not civilly liable for judicial acts).
For the reasons above, we will deny the mandamus petition.
constitute binding precedent.
1 In her order granting Concepcion’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the Clerk did
not direct that assessments be made from Concepcion’s prison account. See 3d Cir.
L.A.R. 24.1(c) (no assessment order if 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b) does not apply). Thus, no
filing fee has been assessed.

-- 2 of 2 --