
    In re: Tormu E. PRALL, Petitioner.
    No. 10-1571.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R.App. P. March 31, 2010.
    Opinion filed: April 21, 2010.
    Tormu E. Prall, Trenton, NJ, pro se.
    Jimmy Kitchen, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Trenton, NJ, for Plaintiff-Respondent.
    Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Tormu E. Prall, an inmate in the State of New Jersey, seeks a writ of mandamus that would compel the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to

declare and take notice under F.R.E. 201 that: (a) Counts I and II prohibit application of [18 U.S.C.] § 1073 to the plaintiff; (b) no arrest warrant exists against the plaintiff in Morrisville, Pennsylvania ...; and (c) police in Massachusetts and Rhode Island falsely charged plaintiff with crimes once they learned he passed through those states.

Mandamus Pet. at Prayer for Relief.

Prall was charged in the District of New Jersey by Criminal Complaint in August 2008 with violating 18 U.S.C. § 1078 by traveling across state lines to avoid prosecution in Mercer County, New Jersey, on a charge of homicide. (See D.N.J. Crim. No. 08-mj-01127.) However, on September 24, 2008, the District Court granted the government’s motion to dismiss the Criminal Complaint and closed the case. (See id. at docket # 3.)

“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.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 705, 710, — L.Ed.2d -(2010) (per curiam) (quotation marks and punctuation omitted).

Because the criminal proceeding in the District of New Jersey has been dismissed, there is no basis for Prall’s mandamus request. We will deny the petition.  