Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: Clark V., 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denying Alexander Clark's petition for a writ of mandamus. Clark had filed a motion seeking an order directing the district court to consider his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court concluded that Clark was not entitled to mandamus relief because such relief is only available when a petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought, which was not the case here. While allowing Clark to proceed in forma pauperis, the court denied his petition for a writ of mandamus.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2007-04-05 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-7913

    Original Title

    In Re: Clark v., 4th Cir. (2007)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denying Alexander Clark's petition for a writ of mandamus. Clark had filed a motion seeking an order directing the district court to consider his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court concluded that Clark was not entitled to mandamus relief because such relief is only available when a petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought, which was not the case here. While allowing Clark to proceed in forma pauperis, the court denied his petition for a writ of mandamus.

    Copyright:

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

    In Re: Clark V., 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denying Alexander Clark's petition for a writ of mandamus. Clark had filed a motion seeking an order directing the district court to consider his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court concluded that Clark was not entitled to mandamus relief because such relief is only available when a petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought, which was not the case here. While allowing Clark to proceed in forma pauperis, the court denied his petition for a writ of mandamus.

    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. 06-7913

    In Re:

    ALEXANDER VONZELL CLARK,


    Petitioner.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.


    (4:96-cr-00069-NCT)

    Submitted:

    March 29, 2007

    Decided:

    April 5, 2007

    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Alexander Vonzell Clark, Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Alexander Clark has filed in this court a Motion for
    Personal Restraint Petition for Review of the Order of the United
    States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina,
    which we have construed as a petition for a writ of mandamus
    seeking an order directing the district court to consider his 28
    U.S.C. 2255 (2000) motion.

    We conclude that Clark is not

    entitled to mandamus relief.


    Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has
    a clear right to the relief sought.

    In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan

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


    drastic

    remedy

    circumstances.

    and

    should

    only

    be

    Further, mandamus is a
    used

    in

    extraordinary

    Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394,

    402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987).

    The

    relief sought by Clark is not available by way of mandamus.


    Although we grant Clarks motion to proceed on appeal 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

    - 2 -

    You might also like