Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: Outler V., 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    Raymond Outler filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking the appeals court to order the district court to appoint him counsel and hold an evidentiary hearing regarding his habeas corpus petition. A magistrate judge had issued findings and a recommendation in November 2000, but the district court had taken no action since. Outler's petition was construed as also requesting that the appeals court compel the district court to act on the magistrate's findings. The appeals court denied the petition, stating that mandamus is a drastic remedy only for extraordinary circumstances. The court declined to exercise its supervisory power to issue the writ, but denied the petition without prejudice so Outler could file another petition if the district court did not act within a reasonable time.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-09-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-7159

    Original Title

    In re: Outler v., 4th Cir. (2001)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Raymond Outler filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking the appeals court to order the district court to appoint him counsel and hold an evidentiary hearing regarding his habeas corpus petition. A magistrate judge had issued findings and a recommendation in November 2000, but the district court had taken no action since. Outler's petition was construed as also requesting that the appeals court compel the district court to act on the magistrate's findings. The appeals court denied the petition, stating that mandamus is a drastic remedy only for extraordinary circumstances. The court declined to exercise its supervisory power to issue the writ, but denied the petition without prejudice so Outler could file another petition if the district court did not act within a reasonable time.

    Copyright:

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

    In Re: Outler V., 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Raymond Outler filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking the appeals court to order the district court to appoint him counsel and hold an evidentiary hearing regarding his habeas corpus petition. A magistrate judge had issued findings and a recommendation in November 2000, but the district court had taken no action since. Outler's petition was construed as also requesting that the appeals court compel the district court to act on the magistrate's findings. The appeals court denied the petition, stating that mandamus is a drastic remedy only for extraordinary circumstances. The court declined to exercise its supervisory power to issue the writ, but denied the petition without prejudice so Outler could file another petition if the district court did not act within a reasonable time.

    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. 01-7159

    In Re: RAYMOND OUTLER,


    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

    Submitted:

    August 14, 2001

    (CA-99-213-5)

    Decided:

    September 20, 2001

    Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Raymond Outler, Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Raymond Outler filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking
    an order directing the district court to appoint him counsel and
    hold an evidentiary hearing in regards to his petition filed under
    28 U.S.C. 2241 (1994).

    A magistrate judge filed findings and a

    recommendation on November 7, 2000, but the district court has


    taken no action since that time.

    The body of Outler's mandamus

    petition leads us to construe it as also requesting that we compel


    the district court to act on the magistrate judge's findings and
    recommendations.
    Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary
    circumstances.

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

    (citing Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct., 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976)).
    We decline to exercise our supervisory power to take the extraordinary action of issuing a writ of mandamus in this case.

    There-

    fore, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny the


    petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice to Outlers right
    to file another mandamus petition if the district court does not
    act within a reasonable time.

    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