Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: Timothy Eley V., 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views3 pages
    The petitioner, Timothy Ray Eley, sought a writ of mandamus to compel his former public defender to file an affidavit on his behalf. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied the petition. The court determined that Eley was not entitled to mandamus relief because: 1) the court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials; and 2) compelling his former counsel to file an affidavit is beyond the scope of mandamus relief. While the court granted Eley leave to proceed in forma pauperis, it ultimately denied his petition for a writ of mandamus.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-08-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-1400

    Original Title

    In Re: Timothy Eley 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, Timothy Ray Eley, sought a writ of mandamus to compel his former public defender to file an affidavit on his behalf. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied the petition. The court determined that Eley was not entitled to mandamus relief because: 1) the court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials; and 2) compelling his former counsel to file an affidavit is beyond the scope of mandamus relief. While the court granted Eley leave to proceed in forma pauperis, it ultimately denied his petition for a writ of mandamus.

    Copyright:

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

    In Re: Timothy Eley V., 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The petitioner, Timothy Ray Eley, sought a writ of mandamus to compel his former public defender to file an affidavit on his behalf. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied the petition. The court determined that Eley was not entitled to mandamus relief because: 1) the court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials; and 2) compelling his former counsel to file an affidavit is beyond the scope of mandamus relief. While the court granted Eley leave to proceed in forma pauperis, it ultimately denied his petition for a writ of mandamus.

    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. 14-1400

    In re: TIMOTHY RAY ELEY,


    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

    Submitted:

    July 11, 2014

    (1:13-cv-00399-LMB-TRJ)

    Decided:

    August 4, 2014

    Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Timothy Ray Eley, Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Timothy
    seeking

    an

    order

    Ray

    Eley

    to

    compel

    petitions
    his

    for

    former

    writ

    counsel,

    of
    an

    mandamus
    assistant

    public defender for the City of Portsmouth, to file an affidavit


    on Eleys behalf.

    We conclude that Eley is not entitled to

    mandamus relief.
    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).


    To the extent that Eley seeks to compel his counsel to
    act in his official capacity, we do not have jurisdiction to
    grant

    mandamus

    relief

    against

    state

    officials.

    Gurley

    v.

    Superior Court of Mecklenburg Cnty., 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir.
    1969).

    To the extent that Eley seeks to compel his counsel to

    act in any other capacity, his request is beyond the scope of


    mandamus relief.
    2001)

    (providing

    See In re Braxton, 258 F.3d 250, 261 (4th Cir.


    that

    party

    seeking

    writ

    of

    mandamus

    must

    establish, inter alia, that requested act is an official act or


    duty).

    The relief sought by Eley is not available by way of


    mandamus.

    Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in

    forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.


    dispense

    with

    contentions

    are

    oral

    argument

    adequately

    because

    presented

    in

    the
    the

    facts

    We

    and

    legal

    materials

    before

    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    PETITION DENIED

    You might also like