Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: Albert Russell Clay, JR., 983 F.2d 1055, 4th Cir. (1992)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    A Virginia prisoner filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, alleging delay in the district court in responding to motions filed in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The court of appeals denied the petition, noting that the district judge had recently recused himself and the case was transferred to a new judge, who was presumably now considering the prisoner's motions. As there had been no undue delay since the last significant action in the case, mandamus relief was deemed improper by the court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1992-12-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 983 F.2d 1055 Docket: 92-8092

    Original Title

    In Re: Albert Russell Clay, Jr., 983 F.2d 1055, 4th Cir. (1992)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    A Virginia prisoner filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, alleging delay in the district court in responding to motions filed in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The court of appeals denied the petition, noting that the district judge had recently recused himself and the case was transferred to a new judge, who was presumably now considering the prisoner's motions. As there had been no undue delay since the last significant action in the case, mandamus relief was deemed improper by the court.

    Copyright:

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

    In Re: Albert Russell Clay, JR., 983 F.2d 1055, 4th Cir. (1992)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    A Virginia prisoner filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, alleging delay in the district court in responding to motions filed in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The court of appeals denied the petition, noting that the district judge had recently recused himself and the case was transferred to a new judge, who was presumably now considering the prisoner's motions. As there had been no undue delay since the last significant action in the case, mandamus relief was deemed improper by the court.

    Copyright:

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

    983 F.

    2d 1055

    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: Albert Russell CLAY, Jr., Petitioner.
    No. 92-8092.

    United States Court of Appeals,


    Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: November 30, 1992
    Decided: December 29, 1992

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.


    Albert Russell Clay, Jr. Petitioner Pro Se.
    PETITION DENIED.
    Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN,
    Senior Circuit Judge.
    PER CURIAM:

    Albert Russell Clay, Jr., a Virginia prisoner, seeks mandamus relief based upon
    delay in the district court. We deny the petition.

    Clay alleges that the district court has delayed responding to motions filed by
    him in his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1988) action. A review of the district court docket
    sheet reveals that in response to a motion filed by Clay the district judge
    hearing this case recused himself and the case was transferred to another
    district judge. This took place at the end of July 1992. Presumably Clay's
    motions are now under consideration by the new judge. Because there has been
    no undue delay since the last significant action in this case, mandamus relief is
    improper.

    Accordingly, though we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the


    petition. 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