United States v. Richard Blackstone , 548 F. App'x 34 ( 2013 )

BLD-086 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 13-3870
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
RICHARD SCOTT BLACKSTONE,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal No. 2-11-cr-00122-009)
District Judge: Honorable Alan N. Bloch
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to
Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
November 27, 2013
Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: December 17, 2013)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Richard Scott Blackstone, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from the
District Court’s order denying as moot his request for mandamus relief. For the reasons
that follow, we will modify that order and summarily affirm it as modified.
I.
In November 2011, Blackstone pleaded guilty in the District Court to conspiracy
to possess with intent to distribute and distribution of five kilograms or more of cocaine,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. In May 2012, the District Court sentenced him to 75
months’ imprisonment. His appeal from that judgment was unsuccessful.
On July 31, 2013, the District Court docketed a “Motion to Compel” from
Blackstone seeking mandamus relief. Specifically, he requested that the District Court
direct the United States Marshals Service to execute the judgment of sentence and
provide the District Court Clerk with a copy of the “return portion” of that judgment so
that it could be added to the docket. On September 6, 2013, a copy of the return portion
of the judgment was docketed, reflecting that Blackstone was delivered to the Bureau of
Prisons’ facility in Welch, West Virginia (FCI-McDowell), on July 9, 2012. In light of
that filing, the District Court, on September 9, 2013, denied Blackstone’s motion to
compel as moot.
Blackstone timely appealed from the District Court’s September 9, 2013 order.1
The Clerk of this Court has listed this appeal for possible summary action, and the
Government has, more recently, moved to summarily affirm.
II.
1
Blackstone’s notice of appeal refers only to the “denied motion on September 6,
2013.” But the District Court did not issue a decision on that date, and its September 9,
2013 order was the only one issued around that time. Accordingly, we treat his notice of
appeal as challenging the September 9, 2013 order.
2
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “We
generally review mandamus decisions for abuse of discretion, but we review non-
discretionary elements de novo.” Hinkel v. England, 349 F.3d 162, 163 (3d Cir. 2003).
We may affirm a district court’s judgment on any basis supported by the record, see
Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam), and we may take
summary action if an appeal does not present a substantial question, see 3d Cir. I.O.P.
10.6.
“If developments occur during the course of adjudication that eliminate a
plaintiff’s personal stake in the outcome of a suit or prevent a court from being able to
grant the requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot.” Ehrheart v. Verizon
Wireless, 609 F.3d 590, 596 (3d Cir. 2010) (quotation marks omitted). In this case,
Blackstone’s judgment of sentence was executed and a copy of the return portion of that
judgment was placed on the District Court’s docket. Because that was the relief that
Blackstone sought in requesting a writ of mandamus, we agree with the District Court
that his mandamus request is moot.
In addition to requesting mandamus relief, Blackstone’s motion to compel
“ask[ed] for his case to be dismissed with prejudice.” (Mot. to Compel 7 (emphasis
omitted).) Although the District Court did not address this latter request, we need not
3
disturb the court’s decision because Blackstone’s bald request for dismissal of “his case”2
is meritless. We will, however, modify the District Court’s September 9, 2013 order to
reflect that the motion to compel is denied, in part, as moot and denied, in part, as
meritless.
Because this appeal does not present a substantial question, we will grant the
Government’s motion and summarily affirm the District Court’s September 9, 2013 order
as modified.
2
We presume that “his case” refers to his criminal case, and that he wishes to have the
indictment that was issued against him dismissed.
4