Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: Claude Bellamy V., 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    Claude Wendell Bellamy petitioned the court for a writ of mandamus ordering the district court to adjudicate a particular claim raised in a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion. The court denied the petition for three reasons: (1) mandamus relief is a drastic remedy only available in extraordinary circumstances; (2) Bellamy did not have a clear right to the relief sought; and (3) the particular issue had already been considered by the district court and reviewed by the appeals court in a previous case. Therefore, the court concluded Bellamy was not entitled to mandamus relief and denied the petition.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-07-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-1590

    Original Title

    In Re: Claude Bellamy v., 4th Cir. (2013)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Claude Wendell Bellamy petitioned the court for a writ of mandamus ordering the district court to adjudicate a particular claim raised in a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion. The court denied the petition for three reasons: (1) mandamus relief is a drastic remedy only available in extraordinary circumstances; (2) Bellamy did not have a clear right to the relief sought; and (3) the particular issue had already been considered by the district court and reviewed by the appeals court in a previous case. Therefore, the court concluded Bellamy was not entitled to mandamus relief and denied the petition.

    Copyright:

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

    In Re: Claude Bellamy V., 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Claude Wendell Bellamy petitioned the court for a writ of mandamus ordering the district court to adjudicate a particular claim raised in a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion. The court denied the petition for three reasons: (1) mandamus relief is a drastic remedy only available in extraordinary circumstances; (2) Bellamy did not have a clear right to the relief sought; and (3) the particular issue had already been considered by the district court and reviewed by the appeals court in a previous case. Therefore, the court concluded Bellamy was not entitled to mandamus relief and 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. 13-1590

    In re:

    CLAUDE WENDELL BELLAMY,

    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.


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

    Submitted:

    July 25, 2013

    Decided: July 29, 2013

    Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Claude Wendell Bellamy, Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Claude
    mandamus

    Wendell

    seeking

    an

    Bellamy

    order

    petitions

    directing

    the

    for

    writ

    of

    district

    court

    to

    adjudicate a particular claim raised in a 28 U.S.C.A. 2255


    (West

    Supp.

    2013)

    motion.

    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

    U.S.

    F.3d

    relief

    circumstances.

    is

    394,

    509,

    402

    516-17

    available

    Kerr

    (1976);
    (4th

    only

    when

    clear right to the relief sought.

    v.

    United

    United

    Cir.

    States

    2003).

    the

    States
    v.

    Further,

    petitioner

    has

    In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan

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


    The relief sought by Bellamy is not available by way
    of mandamus.

    In this case, the particular issue was previously

    considered by the district court and reviewed by this court.


    See United States v. Bellamy, No. 00-4662, 2002 WL 80259 (4th
    Cir.

    Jan

    22,

    2002)

    (unpublished).

    Accordingly,

    although

    we

    grant 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

    this

    court

    and

    argument

    would

    not

    aid

    the

    decisional process.
    PETITION DENIED
    2

    You might also like