Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: Tucker V., 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views3 pages
    Cornelius Tucker Jr. filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit requesting that the district court expedite his competency examination, order an MRI scan, conduct the examination at a federal prison rather than jail, dismiss his seventh attorney, and recuse the district judge. The Fourth Circuit denied the petition, finding that mandamus relief is only available when there is a clear right to relief, and it is an extraordinary remedy not to be used as a substitute for appeal. The court also determined that Tucker did not demonstrate the type of extrajudicial bias required for recusal of the district judge.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-11-30 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-7235

    Original Title

    In Re: Tucker v., 4th Cir. (2004)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Cornelius Tucker Jr. filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit requesting that the district court expedite his competency examination, order an MRI scan, conduct the examination at a federal prison rather than jail, dismiss his seventh attorney, and recuse the district judge. The Fourth Circuit denied the petition, finding that mandamus relief is only available when there is a clear right to relief, and it is an extraordinary remedy not to be used as a substitute for appeal. The court also determined that Tucker did not demonstrate the type of extrajudicial bias required for recusal of the district judge.

    Copyright:

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

    In Re: Tucker V., 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Cornelius Tucker Jr. filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit requesting that the district court expedite his competency examination, order an MRI scan, conduct the examination at a federal prison rather than jail, dismiss his seventh attorney, and recuse the district judge. The Fourth Circuit denied the petition, finding that mandamus relief is only available when there is a clear right to relief, and it is an extraordinary remedy not to be used as a substitute for appeal. The court also determined that Tucker did not demonstrate the type of extrajudicial bias required for recusal of the district judge.

    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. 04-7235

    IN RE:

    CORNELIUS TUCKER, JR.,

    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-02-235-5)

    Submitted:

    November 18, 2004

    Decided:

    November 30, 2004

    Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Cornelius Tucker, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Cornelius Tucker, Jr., faces pending charges in the
    Eastern District of North Carolina.

    The district court ordered

    that Tucker be examined to determine his competence to stand trial.


    Tucker petitions this court for writ of mandamus directing the
    district court to expedite the examination and order a magnetic
    resonance

    imaging

    scan.

    Tucker

    also

    wants

    the

    examination

    conducted at a federal prison facility rather than a jail.

    Tucker

    requests that counsel, his seventh so far in this proceeding, be


    dismissed and the judge be recused.
    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).

    Further, mandamus is a

    drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary situations.


    See Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re
    Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987).
    as a substitute for appeal.
    F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979).

    Mandamus may not be used

    See In re United Steelworkers, 595


    In light of these principles, the

    relief sought by Tucker is not available through mandamus.

    To the

    extent Tucker asserts bias by the district judge, he has not


    demonstrated extrajudicial bias warranting recusal.

    Beard, 811

    F.2d at 827.
    Therefore, although we grant leave to proceed in forma
    pauperis, we deny the petition for mandamus. We dispense with oral

    - 2 -

    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

    - 3 -

    You might also like