
    In re: Rollin Lee LAUB, Petitioner.
    No. 08-2459.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R.App. P. May 30, 2008.
    Filed: June 25, 2008.
    Rollin Lee Laub, Smyrna, DE, pro se.
    Salih Muhammad Al-Shabazz, Wilmington, DE, pro se.
    Hassan Umar Sharif, for Plaintiff.
    Erika Y. Tross, Esq. Wilmington, DE, for Defendants.
    Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, ALDISERT and GARTH, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Rollin Lee Laub is a state prisoner currently incarcerated in Delaware. On March 19, 2008 Laub filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) seeking relief from the District Court’s March 16, 2006 Order. Laub originally filed a petition for a writ of mandamus requesting that this Court compel the District Court to rule on his motion. On May 28 the District Court order defendants to respond to Laub’s 60(b)(4) motion and defendants filed a response on June 7. Because Laub has now received the relief he sought in filing his mandamus petition—action on his motion by the District Court—we will deny his mandamus petition as moot. Laub, in his latest filing, requests that we vacate the District Court’s March 16 order. Such a request is not proper for a mandamus petition. See In re Chambers Dev. Co., 148 F.3d 214, 226 (“mandamus is not a substitute for appeal and a writ of mandamus will not be granted if relief can be obtained by way of our appellate jurisdiction.”)

Accordingly, we will deny the mandamus petition as moot. 
      
      . The order granted the State of Delaware’s Motion For Relief From Consent Decree. The Consent Decree, entered on October 4, 1982, stemmed from a class action law suit relating to prison conditions and disciplinary procedures at the Delaware Correctional Center.
     
      
      . Laub also maintains that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to act while his mandamus petition was pending. We are aware of no authority that supports this contention.
     