Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: Bellamy, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Claude Bellamy's petition for a writ of mandamus. Bellamy sought an order compelling the district court to adjudicate a claim raised in his 2003 motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court concluded that Bellamy was not entitled to mandamus relief because he had appealed the district court's ruling on the § 2255 motion, so mandamus was not an available remedy. The court also noted that mandamus is a drastic remedy only available in extraordinary circumstances when the petitioner has a clear right to relief, and it cannot be used as a substitute for appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-05-23 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-1357

    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 Claude Bellamy's petition for a writ of mandamus. Bellamy sought an order compelling the district court to adjudicate a claim raised in his 2003 motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court concluded that Bellamy was not entitled to mandamus relief because he had appealed the district court's ruling on the § 2255 motion, so mandamus was not an available remedy. The court also noted that mandamus is a drastic remedy only available in extraordinary circumstances when the petitioner has a clear right to relief, and it cannot be used as a substitute for appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    In Re: Bellamy, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Claude Bellamy's petition for a writ of mandamus. Bellamy sought an order compelling the district court to adjudicate a claim raised in his 2003 motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court concluded that Bellamy was not entitled to mandamus relief because he had appealed the district court's ruling on the § 2255 motion, so mandamus was not an available remedy. The court also noted that mandamus is a drastic remedy only available in extraordinary circumstances when the petitioner has a clear right to relief, and it cannot 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. 11-1357

    In re:

    CLAUDE WENDELL BELLAMY,


    Petitioner.

    On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus.


    (7:99-cr-00049-F-1; 7:03-cv-00024-F)

    Submitted:

    May 19, 2011

    Before TRAXLER,
    Judges.

    Chief

    Decided:

    Judge,

    and

    AGEE

    and

    May 23, 2011

    KEENAN,

    Circuit

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Claude Wendell Bellamy, Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:

    mandamus

    Claude

    Wendell

    seeking

    an

    Bellamy

    order

    petitions

    compelling

    the

    for

    writ

    of

    district

    court

    to

    adjudicate a claim raised in his 2003 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to


    vacate.

    We conclude that Bellamy is not entitled to mandamus

    relief.
    Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used
    only
    Dist.

    in

    extraordinary

    Court,

    Moussaoui,
    mandamus

    426

    333

    relief

    circumstances.

    U.S.

    F.3d
    is

    394,

    509,

    402

    516-17

    available

    only

    clear right to the relief sought.

    Kerr

    (1976);

    v.

    United

    United

    (4th Cir. 2003).


    when

    the

    States

    States

    v.

    Further,

    petitioner

    has

    In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan

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


    Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal.
    In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
    Indeed, Bellamy has appealed from the district courts ruling on
    the motion and therefore mandamus is not an available remedy.
    Although we grant Bellamy leave to proceed in forma
    pauperis we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

    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