Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re Clyde Stanley, 56 F.3d 62, 4th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views1 page
    Clyde Stanley filed a motion for injunctive relief in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which was construed as a petition for a writ of mandamus alleging unreasonable delay by the district court in acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court docket and found that two dispositive motions had been filed within 90 days, so there was no undue delay. The Fourth Circuit therefore denied mandamus relief and dispensed with oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1995-05-31 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 56 F.3d 62 Docket: 95-8007

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Clyde Stanley filed a motion for injunctive relief in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which was construed as a petition for a writ of mandamus alleging unreasonable delay by the district court in acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court docket and found that two dispositive motions had been filed within 90 days, so there was no undue delay. The Fourth Circuit therefore denied mandamus relief and dispensed with oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    5 views1 page

    In Re Clyde Stanley, 56 F.3d 62, 4th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Clyde Stanley filed a motion for injunctive relief in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which was construed as a petition for a writ of mandamus alleging unreasonable delay by the district court in acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court docket and found that two dispositive motions had been filed within 90 days, so there was no undue delay. The Fourth Circuit therefore denied mandamus relief and dispensed with oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    56 F.

    3d 62
    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished
    dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law
    of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the
    Fourth Circuit.

    In re Clyde STANLEY, Petitioner.


    No. 95-8007.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted April 20, 1995.
    Decided May 31, 1995.

    Clyde Stanley, petitioner pro se.


    Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:

    Clyde Stanley filed in this Court a "Motion for Injunctive Relief," which we
    have construed as a petition for a writ of mandamus, in which he alleges that
    the district court has unreasonably delayed acting upon his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254
    (1988) petition. The district court's docket sheet reveals that two dispositive
    motions have been filed within ninety days of the date of this petition.
    Therefore, we find there has been no undue delay by the district court in acting
    upon Stanley's habeas petition. Accordingly, we grant permission to proceed in
    forma pauperis and deny mandamus relief. We dispense with oral argument
    because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
    materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    PETITION DENIED

    You might also like