In re Johnson

Fourth Circuit

In re Johnson

45 F. App'x 280

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 6, 2002

DocketNo. 02-6920

StatusPublished

This text of 45 F. App'x 280 (In re Johnson) 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 Johnson, 45 F. App'x 280 (4th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Lorenzo Maurice Johnson petitions this court for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to rule on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, asserting that the district court has unreasonably delayed action on his motion. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances, and Johnson’s petition does not establish extraordinary circumstances warranting mandamus relief. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). Moreover, our review of the district court’s docket sheet discloses that there has been significant action in this case in the past six months, and therefore, there has been no undue delay in the consideration of Johnson’s motion. Accordingly, we deny Johnson’s motion to proceed in forma pau-peris and his motion 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.

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

PER CURIAM.

Lorenzo Maurice Johnson petitions this court for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to rule on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, asserting that the district court has unreasonably delayed action on his motion. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances, and Johnson’s petition does not establish extraordinary circumstances warranting mandamus relief. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). Moreover, our review of the district court’s docket sheet discloses that there has been significant action in this case in the past six months, and therefore, there has been no undue delay in the consideration of Johnson’s motion. Accordingly, we deny Johnson’s motion to proceed in forma pau-peris and his motion 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 F. App'x 280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-johnson-ca4-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack