Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: David Conley V., 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    0 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied David Conley's petition for a writ of mandamus. Conley sought orders prohibiting the district court from denying his post-judgment motion to amend his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and directing the district court to certify a class and grant relief. The court determined that mandamus relief is only available in extraordinary circumstances to remedy a clear right to relief, and may not be used as a substitute for appeal. As the relief Conley sought was not available through mandamus, the court denied the petition.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-10-23 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-1831

    Original Title

    In Re: David Conley v., 4th Cir. (2014)

    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 David Conley's petition for a writ of mandamus. Conley sought orders prohibiting the district court from denying his post-judgment motion to amend his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and directing the district court to certify a class and grant relief. The court determined that mandamus relief is only available in extraordinary circumstances to remedy a clear right to relief, and may not be used as a substitute for appeal. As the relief Conley sought was not available through mandamus, the court denied the petition.

    Copyright:

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

    In Re: David Conley V., 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied David Conley's petition for a writ of mandamus. Conley sought orders prohibiting the district court from denying his post-judgment motion to amend his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and directing the district court to certify a class and grant relief. The court determined that mandamus relief is only available in extraordinary circumstances to remedy a clear right to relief, and may not be used as a substitute for appeal. As the relief Conley sought was not available through mandamus, the court denied the petition.

    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. 14-1831

    In re: DAVID CONLEY,


    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.


    (5:13-ct-03251-F)

    Submitted:

    October 21, 2014

    Decided:

    October 23, 2014

    Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    David Conley, Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    David Conley petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking
    orders prohibiting the district court from denying his postjudgment motion to amend his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2012) complaint
    and directing the district court to certify a class and grant
    relief on his underlying complaint.

    We conclude that Conley is

    not entitled to mandamus relief.


    Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used
    only

    in

    Dist.

    extraordinary

    Court,

    Moussaoui,
    mandamus

    426

    333

    relief

    U.S.

    F.3d
    is

    circumstances.
    394,

    509,

    402

    516-17

    available

    Kerr

    (1976);
    (4th

    only

    clear right to the relief sought.

    United

    United

    Cir.

    when

    v.

    States

    2003).

    the

    States
    v.

    Further,

    petitioner

    has

    In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan

    Assn, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).


    used as a substitute for appeal.

    Mandamus may not be

    In re Lockheed Martin Corp.,

    503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).


    The relief sought by Conley is not available by way of
    mandamus.
    mandamus.
    legal
    before

    Accordingly,

    we

    deny

    the

    petition

    for

    writ

    of

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

    contentions
    this

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.
    PETITION DENIED

    You might also like