Michael Rinaldi v.

Opinion

CLD-110 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 24-1610 ___________

IN RE: MICHAEL RINALDI, Petitioner ____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (Related to Civ. No. 3:21-cv-00225) ____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. April 18, 2024

Before: KRAUSE, FREEMAN, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: May 20, 2024) _________

OPINION* _________

PER CURIAM

Michael Rinaldi filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting that we direct the

District Court to rule on a “Motion to Dismiss” (ECF 8) and a “Verified Claim” (ECF 9)

that he filed in a civil action in which the Government seeks forfeiture of $18,010 in

currency. On the same day that Rinaldi signed the mandamus petition, the District Court

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. denied his “Motion to Dismiss” and ordered that his “Verified Claim” be stricken for lack

of Article III standing. (ECF 25 & 26.) In light of the District Court’s action, the

question Rinaldi presented is no longer a live controversy, so we will dismiss his

mandamus petition as moot. See Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 975 F.2d 964, 974 (3d Cir.

1992); see also Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996)

(“If developments occur during the course of adjudication that eliminate a plaintiff’s

personal stake in the outcome of a suit or prevent a court from being able to grant the

requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot.” (citation omitted)).