In Re: Robert Hayden , 141 F. App'x 80 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                            Opinions of the United
    2005 Decisions                                                                                                             States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    8-25-2005
    In Re: Robert Hayden
    Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
    Docket No. 05-1265
    Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
    Recommended Citation
    "In Re: Robert Hayden " (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 652.
    http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/652
    This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
    AMENDED HPS-88                                           NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    _______________
    No. 05-1265
    ________________
    IN RE: ROBERT HAYDEN,
    Petitioner
    ____________________________________
    On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
    United States District Court for the
    Western District of Pennsylvania
    (Related to W.D.Pa. Crim. No. 94-cr-00107)
    ____________________________________
    Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
    April 29, 2005
    Before: CHIEF JUDGE SCIRICA, WEIS and GARTH, CIRCUIT JUDGES.
    (Filed August 25, 2005)
    OPINION
    _______________________
    PER CURIAM.
    Robert Hayden, proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the
    United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to act on the motion
    that he filed in this matter in August 2003, which he styled as a Rule 60(b) motion.1
    1
    In 1994, Hayden was convicted of using extortionate means to collect or
    attempt to collect an extension of credit; he was sentenced to 188 months of
    imprisonment. In July 2002, he filed a § 2255 motion, which the District Court denied.
    1
    Mandamus is an appropriate remedy only in the most extraordinary of
    situations. In re Pasquariello, 
    16 F.3d 525
    , 528 (3d Cir. 1994). To warrant such a
    remedy, a petitioner must show that he has (I) no other adequate means of obtaining the
    desired relief and (ii) a “clear and indisputable” right to issuance of the writ. See Haines
    v. Liggett Group, Inc., 
    975 F.2d 81
    , 89 (3d Cir. 1992) (citing Kerr v. United States
    District Court, 
    426 U.S. 394
    , 402 (1976)).
    Hayden’s motion was pending at the time he filed this mandamus petition.
    However, the District Court denied Hayden’s motion by order entered August 3, 2005.
    Thus, the request for relief before us is now moot.
    Accordingly, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.
    We denied his request for a certificate of appealability in May 2003.
    2