767 Fed.Appx. 384 (3rd Cir. 2019), 19-1262, In re Berk
|Citation:||767 Fed.Appx. 384|
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM|
|Party Name:||IN RE: Michael BERK, Petitioner|
|Attorney:||Michael Berk, Pro Se|
|Judge Panel:||Before: CHAGARES, RESTREPO and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges|
|Case Date:||May 17, 2019|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. April 18, 2019
This opinion is not regarded as Precedents which bind the court under Third Circuit Internal Operating Procedure Rule 5.7. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Related to D.N.J. Civ. No. 1-17-cv-00091)
Michael Berk, Pro Se
Before: CHAGARES, RESTREPO and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
Michael Berk petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the District Court to screen his amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § § 1915 and 1915A. On his suggestion, we will dismiss his petition as moot.
Berk, who is a federal prisoner, submitted to the District Court a civil rights complaint along with an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The District Court denied that application without prejudice to Berks ability to file an amended application. Berk did so and submitted along with that application an amended complaint. By order entered July 19, 2017, the District Court notified Berk of its intention to screen his amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § § 1915 and 1915A.
After about a year and a half passed without the District Court having entered a screening order, Berk filed the mandamus petition at issue here. The sole relief he requested was an order directing the District Court to screen his amended complaint. Shortly thereafter, however, Berk filed a letter notifying this Court that the District Court entered an order on March 5, 2018. In that order, the District Court ruled that Becks filing of an amended complaint was improper, but it screened his initial complaint and allowed his claims to proceed in part. Beck notified this Court that his mandamus petition "may be mooted" for that reason. We agree that it is because the delay of which he complained
has ended and his case is moving forward...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP