Baari'a Muhammad, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Fourth Circuit. She alleged that the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina had unduly delayed acting on several motions she filed in her underlying civil action. She sought an order from the appellate court directing the district court to act on these motions. The underlying case was originally filed as a civil action in the district court, where the petitioner claimed delays in the judicial process.
The court analyzed the status of the district court's docket to determine if the petition for mandamus remained viable. The court found that the district court had dismissed Muhammad's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and had denied all pending motions on January 12, 2026. Because the district court had already ruled on the motions that were the subject of the delay allegations, the specific relief sought by the petitioner could no longer be granted. The court applied the doctrine of mootness, concluding that since the district court had resolved the issues, there was no longer a live controversy for the appellate court to address. Consequently, the court denied the mandamus petition without reaching the merits of the delay allegations.
The petition for mandamus is dismissed, leaving the district court's January 12, 2026 orders in place. The dismissal means the appellate court did not rule on whether the delays were unreasonable, as the issue was resolved by the district court's final actions. The petitioner's underlying civil action remains dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and no further action is required from the district court regarding the motions that were the subject of the mandamus petition.