Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: Williams V., 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views2 pages
    The petitioner, Stanley Lorenzo Williams, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the district court to act on his motion to recall a judgment from his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 action. The court of appeals denied the petition as moot because the magistrate judge had already denied the motion to recall the judgment in an oral order, thus providing the relief sought by the petitioner. While the court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, it denied the motions to expedite and the petition for writ of mandamus since the issues were adequately addressed in the court's materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-10-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-1962

    Original Title

    In re: Williams v., 4th Cir. (2009)

    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 petitioner, Stanley Lorenzo Williams, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the district court to act on his motion to recall a judgment from his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 action. The court of appeals denied the petition as moot because the magistrate judge had already denied the motion to recall the judgment in an oral order, thus providing the relief sought by the petitioner. While the court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, it denied the motions to expedite and the petition for writ of mandamus since the issues were adequately addressed in the court's materials.

    Copyright:

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

    In Re: Williams V., 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The petitioner, Stanley Lorenzo Williams, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the district court to act on his motion to recall a judgment from his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 action. The court of appeals denied the petition as moot because the magistrate judge had already denied the motion to recall the judgment in an oral order, thus providing the relief sought by the petitioner. While the court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, it denied the motions to expedite and the petition for writ of mandamus since the issues were adequately addressed in the court's materials.

    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. 09-1962

    In Re:

    STANLEY LORENZO WILLIAMS,


    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

    Submitted:

    October 19, 2009

    (1:03-cv-00299-TDS-WWD)

    Decided:

    October 29, 2009

    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 filed a petition for writ of
    mandamus seeking an order compelling the district court to act
    on his motion to recall the judgment filed on September 7, 2004,
    in Williams 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2006) action.

    We conclude that

    Williams mandamus petition is moot.


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

    In re First Fed. Sav. &

    Loan

    Cir.

    Assn,

    mandamus

    is

    860
    a

    F.2d

    135,

    drastic

    138

    remedy

    extraordinary circumstances.

    (4th
    and

    should

    1988).

    Further,

    be

    only

    used

    in

    Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,

    426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th
    Cir. 1987).

    Williams asserts that he is entitled to mandamus

    relief due to the district courts failure to act on his motion


    to recall the judgment.

    However, the magistrate judge denied

    the motion in an oral order entered on October 15, 2009.


    the

    mandamus

    petition

    is

    moot

    obtained the relief he seeks.

    because

    Williams

    has

    Thus,
    already

    Accordingly, although we grant

    leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny Williams motions to


    expedite and deny his 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