In Re: Queen v.

Fourth Circuit

In Re: Queen v.

95 F. App'x 518

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 26, 2004

Docket04-6000

StatusUnpublished

This text of 95 F. App'x 518 (In Re: Queen 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: Queen v., 95 F. App'x 518 (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Nicholas J. Queen, Sr., has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order from this court vacating an allegedly illegal conviction and sentence. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). “[C]ourts are extremely reluctant to grant a writ of mandamus.” In re Ford Motor Co., 751 F.2d 274, 275 (8th Cir.1984). In seeking mandamus relief, Queen carries the heavy burden of showing that he has no other adequate means to attain the relief sought and that his right to such relief is clear and indisputable. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d *519 135, 138 (4th Cir.1988). We find that Queen has failed to meet this burden and thus we dismiss the petition. We deny Queen’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and 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 DISMISSED

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

PER CURIAM.

Nicholas J. Queen, Sr., has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order from this court vacating an allegedly illegal conviction and sentence. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). “[C]ourts are extremely reluctant to grant a writ of mandamus.” In re Ford Motor Co., 751 F.2d 274, 275 (8th Cir.1984). In seeking mandamus relief, Queen carries the heavy burden of showing that he has no other adequate means to attain the relief sought and that his right to such relief is clear and indisputable. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d *519 135, 138 (4th Cir.1988). We find that Queen has failed to meet this burden and thus we dismiss the petition. We deny Queen’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and 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 DISMISSED

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 F. App'x 518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-queen-v-ca4-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack