In re: David Johnson v.

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedOctober 22, 2015
Docket15-1783
StatusUnpublished

This text of In re: David Johnson v. (In re: David Johnson v.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re: David Johnson v., (4th Cir. 2015).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1783

In re: DAVID HAROLD JOHNSON

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (No. 5:15-hc-02130-BO)

Submitted: October 20, 2015 Decided: October 22, 2015

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Harold Johnson, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

David Harold Johnson petitions for a writ of mandamus,

directing the district court to immediately vacate Johnson’s

state court convictions. Such relief is not available by way of

mandamus. See In re First Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138

(4th Cir. 1988) (holding mandamus petitioner must have clear

right to relief sought); In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d

351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007) (holding mandamus is not substitute for

appeal). Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma

pauperis and deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Lockheed Martin Corp.
503 F.3d 351 (Fourth Circuit, 2007)
First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Baker
860 F.2d 135 (Fourth Circuit, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In re: David Johnson v., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-david-johnson-v-ca4-2015.