Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: Taylor V., 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    Carlos Taylor filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the district court to enter a default judgment in his case against the South Carolina Department of Corrections. The appellate court denied the petition, stating that writs of mandamus are a drastic remedy only exercised in extraordinary situations, which Taylor's case did not present. The court is reluctant to grant such relief and the petitioner bears the heavy burden of showing they have no other means to attain relief and their right to relief is clear, which Taylor did not demonstrate. Therefore, the court denied the petition while allowing Taylor to proceed in forma pauperis.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-05-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-536

    Original Title

    In Re: Taylor v., 4th Cir. (1998)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Carlos Taylor filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the district court to enter a default judgment in his case against the South Carolina Department of Corrections. The appellate court denied the petition, stating that writs of mandamus are a drastic remedy only exercised in extraordinary situations, which Taylor's case did not present. The court is reluctant to grant such relief and the petitioner bears the heavy burden of showing they have no other means to attain relief and their right to relief is clear, which Taylor did not demonstrate. Therefore, the court denied the petition while allowing Taylor to proceed in forma pauperis.

    Copyright:

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

    In Re: Taylor V., 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Carlos Taylor filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the district court to enter a default judgment in his case against the South Carolina Department of Corrections. The appellate court denied the petition, stating that writs of mandamus are a drastic remedy only exercised in extraordinary situations, which Taylor's case did not present. The court is reluctant to grant such relief and the petitioner bears the heavy burden of showing they have no other means to attain relief and their right to relief is clear, which Taylor did not demonstrate. Therefore, the court denied the petition while allowing Taylor to proceed in forma pauperis.

    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. 98-536

    In Re:

    CARLOS TAYLOR,
    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-97-1577-21BD)


    Submitted:

    April 16, 1998

    Decided:

    May 1, 1998

    Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Carlos Taylor, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Carlos Taylor petitions the court for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the district court to enter default judgment in his
    favor in his suit against the South Carolina Department of Corrections. The grant of a writ is a drastic remedy to be exercised only
    in extraordinary situations. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,
    426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Taylors case does not present such a
    situation.
    Court are extremely reluctant to grant a writ of mandamus. See
    In re Ford Motor Co., 751 F.2d 274, 275 (8th Cir. 1984). The party
    seeking such relief carries the heavy burden of showing he has no
    other adequate means to attain the relief he desires and that his
    right to such relief is clear and indisputable. Allied Chem. Corp.
    v. Diaflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980) (citations omitted).
    Taylor has not made such a showing.
    Accordingly, although we grant Taylor leave to proceed in
    forma pauperis, we deny his petition for a 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

    You might also like