Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: Terrell Rogers V., 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views3 pages
    The petitioner, Terrell Rogers, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus on two grounds. First, he alleged undue delay by the district court in ruling on his Rule 60(b) motion and second Section 2255 motion. However, the court found that the record did not reveal any undue delay. Second, Rogers requested that the court modify or vacate the district court's order denying his first Section 2255 motion. The court denied this request, stating that mandamus relief is a drastic remedy only available in extraordinary circumstances to correct a clear right to relief. The relief sought was not available through mandamus. Therefore, the court denied the petition.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-07-31 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-1288

    Original Title

    In Re: Terrell Rogers v., 4th Cir. (2014)

    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, Terrell Rogers, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus on two grounds. First, he alleged undue delay by the district court in ruling on his Rule 60(b) motion and second Section 2255 motion. However, the court found that the record did not reveal any undue delay. Second, Rogers requested that the court modify or vacate the district court's order denying his first Section 2255 motion. The court denied this request, stating that mandamus relief is a drastic remedy only available in extraordinary circumstances to correct a clear right to relief. The relief sought was not available through mandamus. Therefore, the court denied the petition.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    1 views3 pages

    In Re: Terrell Rogers V., 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The petitioner, Terrell Rogers, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus on two grounds. First, he alleged undue delay by the district court in ruling on his Rule 60(b) motion and second Section 2255 motion. However, the court found that the record did not reveal any undue delay. Second, Rogers requested that the court modify or vacate the district court's order denying his first Section 2255 motion. The court denied this request, stating that mandamus relief is a drastic remedy only available in extraordinary circumstances to correct a clear right to relief. The relief sought was not available through mandamus. Therefore, the court denied the petition.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 14-1288

    In re:

    TERRELL ROGERS, a/k/a Tavon,


    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.


    (1:09-cr-00467-WMN-1; 1:13-cv-00116-WMN)

    Submitted:

    July 29, 2014

    Decided: July 31, 2014

    Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Terrell Rogers, Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Terrell Rogers petitions for a writ of mandamus on two
    grounds.

    First, Rogers appears to allege undue delay by the

    district court in ruling on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion and


    second 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2012) motion.

    He seeks an order from

    this court directing the district to act.


    present

    record

    does

    not

    reveal

    undue

    We conclude that the

    delay

    in

    the

    district

    court.
    Next, Rogers also requests that this court modify or
    vacate

    the

    motion.

    district

    courts

    order

    denying

    his

    first

    2255

    Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used

    only in extraordinary circumstances.

    Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court,

    426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d
    509,

    516-17

    (4th

    Cir.

    2003).

    Further,

    mandamus

    relief

    is

    available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the


    relief sought, In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn, 860 F.2d 135,
    138 (4th Cir. 1988), and may not be used as a substitute for
    appeal.

    In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th

    Cir. 2007).

    The relief sought by Rogers is not available by way

    of mandamus.
    Accordingly,

    although

    we

    grant

    leave

    to

    proceed

    in

    forma pauperis, we deny the mandamus petition.

    We dispense with

    oral

    contentions

    argument

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    legal

    are

    adequately

    presented

    in

    the

    materials

    before

    this

    court

    and

    argument would not aid the decisional process.

    PETITION DENIED

    You might also like