Third Circuit disposition — 251672np-pdf

CLD-172 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 25-1672
___________
In re: DAVID STEBBINS,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
(Related to D. Del. Misc. No. 1:24-mc-00478, Civ. No. 1:24-cv-01173, & Civ. No.
1:24-cv-01174)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
June 26, 2025
Before: KRAUSE, PHIPPS, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: August 5, 2025)
__________
OPINION*
__________
PER CURIAM
David Stebbins has filed a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to
compel the District Court to act in the above-captioned cases. After Stebbins filed the
mandamus petition, the District Court transferred Stebbins’s two civil actions to the
* 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
Western District of Arkansas. And the District Court closed Stebbins’s miscellaneous
matter after ruling on the pending motions.
In light of the District Court’s resolution of the three cases, our Clerk of Court
directed Stebbins to file a response, within 21 days, “addressing whether his mandamus
petition is moot.” Stebbins failed to respond, timely or otherwise. In any event, because
Stebbins’s mandamus petition no longer presents a live controversy, we will dismiss it as
moot. See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698–99 (3d Cir. 1996).

-- 2 of 2 --