In re Suggs

Fourth Circuit

In re Suggs

12 F. App'x 133

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 19, 2001

DocketNo. 01-6261

StatusPublished

This text of 12 F. App'x 133 (In re Suggs) 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 Suggs, 12 F. App'x 133 (4th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Dennis Ray Suggs petitions this court for a writ of mandamus. He asks this court to direct the district court to rule on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000) petition, alleging that the district court has delayed unreasonably. Writs of mandamus are extraordinary writs, and the power to issue is sparingly exercised. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct., 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). Suggs’ petition does not set forth exceptional circumstances as would warrant the issuance of a writ of mandamus at this time. We note, however, that the district court has taken no action for over eight months. Accordingly, we deny Suggs’ petition without prejudice to his refiling it if the district court fails to act within a reasonable time. 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.

Dennis Ray Suggs petitions this court for a writ of mandamus. He asks this court to direct the district court to rule on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000) petition, alleging that the district court has delayed unreasonably. Writs of mandamus are extraordinary writs, and the power to issue is sparingly exercised. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct., 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). Suggs’ petition does not set forth exceptional circumstances as would warrant the issuance of a writ of mandamus at this time. We note, however, that the district court has taken no action for over eight months. Accordingly, we deny Suggs’ petition without prejudice to his refiling it if the district court fails to act within a reasonable time. 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)

12 F. App'x 133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-suggs-ca4-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack