IN RE: Anthony FLETCHER (2019)

OPINION *

Pro se petitioner Anthony Fletcher seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the District Court to hold a hearing on a motion he filed regarding his appointed counsel in his underlying habeas proceedings in the District Court. Fletcher filed his mandamus petition in November 2018. By order entered December 3, 2018, the District Court denied his motion. In light of the District Court’s action, Fletcher’s request regarding his now-resolved motion is moot.

To the extent that Fletcher vaguely seeks “reassignment in the alternative,” see Mandamus Petition at ECF p. 3, he has not demonstrated his entitlement to the extraordinary remedy of mandamus relief. See Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190, 130 S.Ct. 705, 175 L.Ed.2d 657 (2010) (per curiam) (“Before a writ of mandamus may issue, a party must establish that (1) no other adequate means [exist] to attain the relief he desires, (2) the party’s right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable, and (3) the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, we will dismiss Fletcher’s petition.

PER CURIAM