Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Steelman V., 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views3 pages
    The petitioner, Steve Allen Steelman, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the district court to enter a final order in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 action, which had been pending since August 1997. The appeals court denied the petition without prejudice, noting that the district court had resumed active consideration of the case after an inordinately lengthy delay. The appeals court concluded Steelman's entitlement to mandamus relief was not clear at this point and denied the petition, but without prejudice to refiling if the district court did not issue a decision within a reasonable time.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-02-08 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-7210

    Original Title

    Steelman v., 4th Cir. (2000)

    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 petitioner, Steve Allen Steelman, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the district court to enter a final order in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 action, which had been pending since August 1997. The appeals court denied the petition without prejudice, noting that the district court had resumed active consideration of the case after an inordinately lengthy delay. The appeals court concluded Steelman's entitlement to mandamus relief was not clear at this point and denied the petition, but without prejudice to refiling if the district court did not issue a decision within a reasonable time.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    5 views3 pages

    Steelman V., 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The petitioner, Steve Allen Steelman, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the district court to enter a final order in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 action, which had been pending since August 1997. The appeals court denied the petition without prejudice, noting that the district court had resumed active consideration of the case after an inordinately lengthy delay. The appeals court concluded Steelman's entitlement to mandamus relief was not clear at this point and denied the petition, but without prejudice to refiling if the district court did not issue a decision within a reasonable time.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 99-7210

    In Re: STEVE ALLEN STEELMAN,


    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.


    (CA-97-107-5-V, CR-94-11-5-V)

    Submitted:

    January 25, 2000

    Decided:

    February 8, 2000

    Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Steve Allen Steelman, Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Steve Allen Steelman has filed a petition for writ of mandamus
    in this Court to compel the district court to enter a final order
    in his 28 U.S.C. 2255 action, which he filed in the district
    court in August 1997. We deny Steelmans request without prejudice
    to his refiling a request for mandamus relief from this Court
    should the district court not act within a reasonable time from
    this opinion.
    Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary
    circumstances, see Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394,
    402 (1976), and Steelman carries the heavy burden of establishing
    that he has no other adequate means to attain relief and that his
    entitlement to such relief is clear and indisputable.

    See Allied

    Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980).


    We have reviewed the district courts docket report in this
    case and conclude that after an inordinately lengthy delay in its
    consideration of Steelmans case, the court has resumed active
    consideration of it.

    Therefore, it appears that a decision from

    the court is forthcoming, and Steelmans entitlement to mandamus


    relief is not at this point clear and indisputable.

    We therefore

    deny Steelmans petition without prejudice to his refiling should


    the court not issue a decision within a reasonable time.
    his motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this Court.

    We grant

    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