in Re: Richard Edward Weber v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 2010 per curiam requiring “that 1 no other adequate means…

DLD-012 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 25-2032
___________
IN RE: RICHARD EDWARD WEBER,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(W.D. Pa. Civ. No. 1:24-cv-00341)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
October 16, 2025
Before: RESTREPO, PORTER, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed October 27, 2025)
__________
OPINION*
__________
PER CURIAM
Pennsylvania inmate Richard Edward Weber initiated in the District Court a pro se
civil rights action related to the seizure of his computer. The District Court entered an
order granting Weber leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). That same day, Weber’s
amended complaint was filed on the docket. The defendants responded to the amended
* 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
complaint with a dispositive motion. The June 27, 2025 deadline for filing an opposition
to the defendants’ motion came and went; the only document Weber has filed with the
District Court in the last several months is a change-of-address notice.
Between the filings of Weber’s amended complaint and the defendants’
dispositive motion, see Pet. 13, Weber filed in this Court a pro se petition for a writ of
mandamus. In that petition, Weber requested that we order the District Court “to rule on
the pending IFP motion and/or deem the complaint filed to allow the petitioner to litigate
his case[.]” Pet. 1.*
Because the District Court had already taken the action his petition now seeks to
compel, Weber does not satisfy any part of the standard for mandamus relief. See
Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam) (requiring “that (1) no
other adequate means [exist] to attain the relief he desires, (2) the party’s right to issuance
of the writ is clear and indisputable, and (3) the writ is appropriate under the
circumstances”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). We will deny his
petition, accordingly.
* Weber also sought an order directing the District Court to “Rule on all outstanding
motions.” Pet. 3. Weber drafted the mandamus petition before the defendants had filed
their dispositive motion, so that motion is not fairly included in the scope of the relief
requested in Weber’s petition.

-- 2 of 2 --