767 Fed.Appx. 384 (3rd Cir. 2019), 19-1262, In re Berk

Docket Nº:19-1262
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

Page 384

767 Fed.Appx. 384 (3rd Cir. 2019)

IN RE: Michael BERK, Petitioner

No. 19-1262

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

May 17, 2019


Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. April 18, 2019

Editorial Note:

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 Berk’s 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 Beck’s 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

Page 385

has ended and his case is moving forward...

To continue reading