In re Berk, 051719 FED3, 19-1262

Docket Nº:19-1262
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM
Party Name:IN RE: MICHAEL BERK, Petitioner
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
 
FREE EXCERPT

IN RE: MICHAEL BERK, Petitioner

No. 19-1262

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

May 17, 2019

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

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

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)

Before: CHAGARES, RESTREPO and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

OPINION [*]

PER CURIAM

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 has ended and his case is moving forward once again.

Berk goes on to "point out" that the District Court screened only his original complaint and let only that complaint proceed instead of screening his amended complaint as it initially said it would. Berk also asserts that he thought the filing of his amended complaint was...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP