Jobadiah Weeks, proceeding pro se, was originally charged in 2019 with tax evasion, wire fraud conspiracy, and conspiracy to sell unregistered securities related to a cryptocurrency mining scheme. He pled guilty to the tax and securities charges in 2020 and remains awaiting sentencing. Since his plea, Weeks has filed numerous motions in the District Court, including several under Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure seeking the return of seized assets and a motion to unseal certain court documents. In January 2026, Weeks filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Third Circuit, asking the appellate court to compel the District Court to rule on his pending motions. However, before the Third Circuit could issue a decision, the District Court granted the motion to unseal documents and denied the renewed Rule 41(g) motion in February 2026.
The Third Circuit, in a per curiam opinion, focused on the threshold issue of mootness. The court observed that the purpose of a writ of mandamus is to compel a lower court to perform a duty it has refused to perform. Here, the District Court had already ruled on both the motion to unseal documents and the renewed Rule 41(g) motion for the return of property. Because the lower court had addressed the specific relief Weeks sought in his mandamus petition, there was no longer a live controversy requiring appellate intervention. The court relied on the principle that if developments during the course of adjudication prevent a court from granting the requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot. Citing Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., the court concluded that since the District Court had acted, the mandamus petition was effectively resolved by the lower court's actions.
The dismissal of the mandamus petition means the Third Circuit will not issue a ruling on the merits of Weeks's claims regarding the delay in ruling on his motions. The District Court's February 2026 decision stands: the documents are unsealed, and the request for the return of seized assets is denied. The mootness doctrine prevents the appellate court from providing guidance on whether the District Court's handling of these motions was timely or correct, leaving those specific procedural questions unresolved at the appellate level. The case remains pending in the District Court for sentencing.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download