Third Circuit disposition — 251217np-pdf

HLD-010 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 25-1217
___________
In re: KUDZAI SHONHAI,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(Related to M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 3:24-cv-00229)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
March 27, 2025
Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, HARDIMAN and PORTER, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: April 23, 2025)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
In early 2025, Kudzai Shonhai filed a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus,
asking us to direct the District Court to rule on his petition for writ of habeas corpus. In
the habeas petition, Shonhai challenged his prolonged detention in immigration custody
and requested that the District Court order a bond hearing. After Shonhai filed the
mandamus petition, the District Court entered a memorandum and order granting his
* 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
habeas petition and ordering the Respondent to provide him with an individualized bond
hearing. Because of that development in the District Court, this Court ordered Shonhai to
show cause why the mandamus petition should not be dismissed as moot. Shonhai filed a
response, asserting that his petition was not moot because, since his bond hearing, he
filed more motions with the District Court and now seeks an order directing the District
Court to rule on those motions expeditiously.
In light of the District Court’s order granting Shonhai’s habeas petition, this
mandamus petition no longer presents a live controversy. Therefore, we will dismiss it as
moot. See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996). To
the extent that Shonhai seeks additional relief based on new developments in the District
Court, he may file a new original proceeding petition in accordance with all applicable
rules.1 Shonhai’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied.
1 As for Shonhai’s recently filed pending motions, he likewise would be required to show
delay by the District Court approaching a failure to exercise jurisdiction. See Madden v.
Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996).

-- 2 of 2 --