James Platts v. , 572 F. App'x 75 ( 2014 )

CLD-296 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 14-1411
___________
IN RE: JAMES C. PLATTS,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(Related to Civ. No. 2-14-cv-00036)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
July 3, 2014
Before: FUENTES, JORDAN and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: July 11, 2014)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Pro se petitioner James Platts has filed a petition for writ of mandamus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1651 seeking an order compelling the District Court to docket a complaint he
filed against the United States alleging that it engaged in unauthorized collection actions.
Our review of the District Court’s docket reveals that Platts’s civil action has, in fact,
been docketed (and subsequently dismissed due to Platts’s refusal either to pay the filing
fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis). See W.D. Pa. Civ. A. No. 14-cv-0036.
Therefore, Platts’s mandamus petition seeking to compel the District Court to docket the
action is moot,1 and we will deny it accordingly.
1
To the extent that Platts asks us to order the District Court to hold an evidentiary
hearing, we will deny the request because Platts’s right to a hearing is not “clear and
indisputable.” Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 36 (1980) (per curiam)
(quotation marks omitted).
2