Keith Manfredi v.

ALD-232 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 12-2829
___________
IN RE: KEITH MANFREDI, Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Related to D.N.J. 12-cv-01905)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
July 19, 2012
Before: SLOVITER, FISHER and WEIS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: July 31, 2012)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM.
Keith Manfredi petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus compelling the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey to rule on a motion for summary
judgment. We will deny the petition as moot.
In March of 2012, Manfredi filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §2241, challenging a prison disciplinary decision that resulted in the loss of
good time credit. On May 14 2012, Manfredi filed a motion for summary judgment. On
July 5, 2012, Manfredi filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, requesting that we compel
1
the District Court to grant him summary judgment. Meanwhile, the District Court
ordered the United States to file an answer within thirty days on July 12, 2012, and
denied Manfredi’s motion without prejudice on July 13, 2012 because it was filed
prematurely.
In light of the District Court decision, to the extent Manfredi is asking us to
compel a ruling on his motion, the petition is denied as moot. See In re Orthopedic Bone
Screw Prod. Liab. Litig., 94 F.3d 110 (3d Cir. 1996). To the extent that Manfredi seeks
relief relating to the merits of the claims raised in his habeas petition, mandamus is not an
alternative to an appeal. In re Chambers Dev. Co., Inc., 148 F.3d 214. (“A writ of
mandamus should not be issued where relief may be obtained through an ordinary
appeal”). Besides, the District Court has yet to rule on his §2241 petition.
We will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.
2