Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: Redleski V., 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    The petitioner, Douglas A. Redleski, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking the court to direct the district court to rule on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief. The court of appeals denied the petition without prejudice, noting that writs of mandamus are sparingly issued and the circumstances did not warrant issuing one at this time. However, the court acknowledged that the district court had taken no action on the petition for over seven months. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis was granted and oral argument was not required.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-09-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 00-6773

    Original Title

    In re: Redleski v., 4th Cir. (2000)

    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, Douglas A. Redleski, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking the court to direct the district court to rule on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief. The court of appeals denied the petition without prejudice, noting that writs of mandamus are sparingly issued and the circumstances did not warrant issuing one at this time. However, the court acknowledged that the district court had taken no action on the petition for over seven months. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis was granted and oral argument was not required.

    Copyright:

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

    In Re: Redleski V., 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The petitioner, Douglas A. Redleski, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking the court to direct the district court to rule on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief. The court of appeals denied the petition without prejudice, noting that writs of mandamus are sparingly issued and the circumstances did not warrant issuing one at this time. However, the court acknowledged that the district court had taken no action on the petition for over seven months. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis was granted and oral argument was not required.

    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. 00-6773

    In Re: DOUGLAS A. REDLESKI,


    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

    Submitted:

    September 8, 2000

    (CA-99-37)

    Decided:

    September 28, 2000

    Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Douglas A. Redleski, Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Douglas A. Redleski petitions this court for a writ of mandamus.

    He asks this court to direct the district court to rule on

    his 28 U.S.C.A. 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000) petition, alleging
    that the district court has delayed unreasonably.

    Writs of man-

    damus are extraordinary writs, and the power to issue them is


    sparingly exercised. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct., 426 U.S.
    394, 402 (1976).

    Redleskis petition does not set forth such ex-

    ceptional circumstances as would warrant the issuance of a writ of


    mandamus at this time.

    We note, however, that the district court

    has taken no action for over seven months.

    Accordingly, we deny

    Redleskis petition without prejudice to his refiling it if the


    district court fails to act within a reasonable time.
    to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

    The motion

    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