Gabriel Omar Gigena v. Howard C. Nielson Jr., et al.

The questions presented are: Whether a timely appeal from the denial of mandamus-type relief becomes moot solely because the related criminal case has proceeded to judgment, where petitioner remains subject to supervised release and collateral consequences, and vacatur, remand, or direction to consider his timely pretrial submissions in their original pretrial posture would provide effective relief for record preservation, equitable tolling, and appellate review? Whether 28 U.S.C. §1361 authorizes relief in the nature of mandamus against federal judicial officers or clerks when the duty asserted is nondiscretionary and concerns accepting, processing, or ruling upon filings required by federal law and the Federal Rules? Whether, if §1361 is unavailable or if the mandamus appeal became moot after district-court judgment, the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. §1651, Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 21, and the equitable rule of United States v. Munsingwear, Inc. require writ relief, vacatur, or remand necessary or appropriate to preserve appellate jurisdiction and prevent unreviewed lower-court rulings from producing continuing consequences? 2 of 40