Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: Bright V., 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Sherrod V. Bright's petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the district court to rule on his forfeiture action. The court determined that Bright did not have a clear right to the relief sought through mandamus, as mandamus is a drastic remedy only used in extraordinary circumstances. While the court granted Bright's request to proceed in forma pauperis, it denied the petition for writ of mandamus, finding the relief was not available through that process and could not be used as a substitute for appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-04-27 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-1022

    Original Title

    In Re: Bright v., 4th Cir. (2009)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Sherrod V. Bright's petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the district court to rule on his forfeiture action. The court determined that Bright did not have a clear right to the relief sought through mandamus, as mandamus is a drastic remedy only used in extraordinary circumstances. While the court granted Bright's request to proceed in forma pauperis, it denied the petition for writ of mandamus, finding the relief was not available through that process and could not be used as a substitute for appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    1 views2 pages

    In Re: Bright V., 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Sherrod V. Bright's petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the district court to rule on his forfeiture action. The court determined that Bright did not have a clear right to the relief sought through mandamus, as mandamus is a drastic remedy only used in extraordinary circumstances. While the court granted Bright's request to proceed in forma pauperis, it denied the petition for writ of mandamus, finding the relief was not available through that process and could not be used as a substitute for appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 09-1022

    In Re:

    SHERROD V. BRIGHT,
    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.


    (4:08-cv-00029-TLW-TER)

    Submitted:

    April 16, 2009

    Decided:

    April 27, 2009

    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Sherrod V. Bright, Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Sherrod V. Bright petitions for a writ of mandamus
    seeking an order compelling the district court to rule on his
    forfeiture action.

    We conclude that Bright is not entitled to

    mandamus relief.
    Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner
    has a clear right to the relief sought.

    In re First Fed. Sav. &

    Loan

    Cir.

    Assn,

    mandamus

    is

    860
    a

    F.2d

    135,

    drastic

    138

    remedy

    extraordinary circumstances.

    (4th
    and

    should

    1988).

    Further,

    only

    used

    be

    in

    Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,

    426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th
    Cir.

    1987).

    Mandamus

    may

    not

    be

    used

    as

    substitute

    for

    appeal.

    In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.

    1979).

    The relief sought by Bright is not available by way of

    mandamus.
    Accordingly,

    although

    we

    grant

    leave

    to

    proceed

    forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.


    dispense

    with

    oral

    argument

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    in
    We

    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