IN RE: Corey LANE (2019)

OPINION *

Pro se petitioner Corey Lane has filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting that we direct the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to rule on separate motions for default judgment that he allegedly filed on May 1 and 3, 2018. He previously filed a nearly identical mandamus petition asking for the same relief. We denied the petition, explaining that the District Court had already denied the May 1, 2018 motion and that there was no indication that Lane had filed a second motion on May 3, 2018. See In re Lane, 740 F. App'x 768 (3d Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (non-precedential opinion). We reach the same conclusion here. Lane has already obtained the requested ruling on the May 1, 2018 motion, and if he “believes that the failure to docket his May 3 motion was in error (despite the District Court's order denying his motion for entry of default judgment, see Dkt. #103), he may raise that issue in the District Court.” Id. at 769.¹ Accordingly, we will deny Lane's mandamus petition.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We note that the District Court has promptly ruled on Lane's sundry filings in this case, and we have twice affirmed the Court's orders denying his requests for injunctive relief. See Lane v. New Jersey, ––– F. App'x ––––, 2018 WL 4922815 (3d Cir. Oct. 10, 2018) (per curiam) (non-precedential opinion); Lane v. New Jersey, 725 F. App'x 185 (3d Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (non-precedential opinion).

PER CURIAM