Third Circuit disposition — 163493np-pdf

1
ALD-007 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 16-3493
___________
IN RE: THOMAS THORNDIKE,
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. 1-15-cv-02014)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
October 13, 2016
Before: MCKEE, JORDAN and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: November 1, 2016)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Thomas Thorndike seeks a writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1651, to compel the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to issue a
ruling on his habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
* 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
Thorndike filed his petition in March 2015. The Government filed a response to
the habeas petition in June 2015, to which Thorndike replied later that same month. At
the time Thorndike submitted his mandamus petition to this Court, his habeas petition
had been ripe and pending for about fourteen months. However, the record reflects that
the District Court denied habeas relief by a Memorandum Opinion and Order entered
September 8, 2016, prior to the Clerk’s receipt of Thorndike’s motion for leave to
proceed with this proceeding in forma pauperis. As the District Court has ruled on the
habeas petition, Thorndike has received the relief sought in his mandamus petition. Thus,
we will dismiss the petition as moot. See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d
690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996).
If Thorndike wishes to seek appellate review of the District Court’s adverse
decision with respect to his habeas petition, he should file his notice of appeal in the
District Court within the time period set forth in Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B).

-- 2 of 2 --