Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: Williams V., 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    The document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denying Stanley Lorenzo Williams' petition for a writ of mandamus. Williams had petitioned the court, alleging undue delay by the district court in acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. While the appeals court found the district court's delay was not unreasonable, it denied the mandamus petition without prejudice, allowing Williams to file another petition if the district court does not act expeditiously. It also granted Williams in forma pauperis status and denied his motion for a stay of execution and to expedite consideration of the stay motion.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-08-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-1653

    Original Title

    In Re: Williams v., 4th Cir. (2008)

    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 document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denying Stanley Lorenzo Williams' petition for a writ of mandamus. Williams had petitioned the court, alleging undue delay by the district court in acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. While the appeals court found the district court's delay was not unreasonable, it denied the mandamus petition without prejudice, allowing Williams to file another petition if the district court does not act expeditiously. It also granted Williams in forma pauperis status and denied his motion for a stay of execution and to expedite consideration of the stay motion.

    Copyright:

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

    In Re: Williams V., 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denying Stanley Lorenzo Williams' petition for a writ of mandamus. Williams had petitioned the court, alleging undue delay by the district court in acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. While the appeals court found the district court's delay was not unreasonable, it denied the mandamus petition without prejudice, allowing Williams to file another petition if the district court does not act expeditiously. It also granted Williams in forma pauperis status and denied his motion for a stay of execution and to expedite consideration of the stay motion.

    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. 08-1653

    In Re: STANLEY LORENZO WILLIAMS,


    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

    Submitted:

    July 31, 2008

    (1:07-cv-00828-TDS-RAE)

    Decided:

    August 18, 2008

    Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Stanley Lorenzo Williams, Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Stanley

    Lorenzo

    Williams

    petitions

    for

    writ

    of

    mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on


    his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000) petition.

    He seeks an order from this

    court directing the district court to act.


    mandamus

    relief

    is

    not

    warranted

    Although we find that

    because

    the

    delay

    is

    not

    unreasonable, we deny the mandamus petition without prejudice to


    the filing of another mandamus petition if the district court does
    not

    act

    pauperis.

    expeditiously.

    We

    grant

    leave

    to

    proceed

    in

    forma

    Williams motion for stay of execution of state court

    sentences and to expedite consideration of the motion to stay is


    denied. 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

    - 2 -

    You might also like