Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: Terry Johnson V., 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    Terry Johnson filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to rule on a motion to reopen his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The district court had already construed the motion as a separate § 2255 motion, assigned it a new docket number, observed that it was an unauthorized successive motion, construed it as a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 motion, and transferred the matter to the district where Johnson is incarcerated. As the district court had already acted on the motion, the appellate court denied the petition for mandamus as moot.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2016-04-13 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-2167

    Original Title

    In Re: Terry Johnson v., 4th Cir. (2016)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Terry Johnson filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to rule on a motion to reopen his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The district court had already construed the motion as a separate § 2255 motion, assigned it a new docket number, observed that it was an unauthorized successive motion, construed it as a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 motion, and transferred the matter to the district where Johnson is incarcerated. As the district court had already acted on the motion, the appellate court denied the petition for mandamus as moot.

    Copyright:

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

    In Re: Terry Johnson V., 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Terry Johnson filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to rule on a motion to reopen his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The district court had already construed the motion as a separate § 2255 motion, assigned it a new docket number, observed that it was an unauthorized successive motion, construed it as a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 motion, and transferred the matter to the district where Johnson is incarcerated. As the district court had already acted on the motion, the appellate court denied the petition for mandamus as moot.

    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. 15-2167

    In Re:

    TERRY DONNELL JOHNSON, a/k/a Little Terry,


    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.


    (3:08-cv-00484-RJC)

    Submitted:

    March 29, 2016

    Decided:

    April 13, 2016

    Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

    Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Terry Donnell Johnson, Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Terry Johnson petitions this court for a writ of mandamus,
    seeking

    an

    order

    directing

    the

    district

    court

    to

    rule

    motion to reopen his 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2012) motion.

    on

    District

    court records disclose that Johnsons motion was construed as a


    separate 2255 motion to which the court assigned a different
    docket number (No. 3:15-cv-466-RJC).

    In an order entered on

    October

    that

    8,

    2015,

    the

    court

    observed

    the

    second

    2255

    motion was successive and unauthorized, construed the motion as


    a 28 U.S.C. 2241 (2012) motion, and transferred the matter to
    the Middle District of Florida, where Johnson is incarcerated.
    Because the district court has acted on Johnsons motion to
    reopen, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss
    the mandamus petition as moot.

    We dispense with oral argument

    because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented


    in

    the

    materials

    before

    us

    and

    argument

    would

    not

    aid

    the

    decisional process.
    PETITION DISMISSED

    You might also like