Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 8 views

    In Re: Miller V., 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    George Miller filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit alleging that the district court had unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. After Miller filed the mandamus petition, the district court denied relief on Miller's habeas petition. The Fourth Circuit denied Miller's mandamus petition as moot since the district court had now acted on the habeas petition, but granted Miller's motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    In Re: Miller V., 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    George Miller filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit alleging that the district court had unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. After Miller filed the mandamus petition, the district court denied relief on Miller's habeas petition. The Fourth Circuit denied Miller's mandamus petition as moot since the district court had now acted on the habeas petition, but granted Miller's motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2003-05-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-7743

    Original Title

    In Re: Miller v., 4th Cir. (2003)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    George Miller filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit alleging that the district court had unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. After Miller filed the mandamus petition, the district court denied relief on Miller's habeas petition. The Fourth Circuit denied Miller's mandamus petition as moot since the district court had now acted on the habeas petition, but granted Miller's motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    8 views2 pages

    In Re: Miller V., 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    George Miller filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit alleging that the district court had unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. After Miller filed the mandamus petition, the district court denied relief on Miller's habeas petition. The Fourth Circuit denied Miller's mandamus petition as moot since the district court had now acted on the habeas petition, but granted Miller's motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 02-7743

    In Re: GEORGE MILLER,


    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

    Submitted:

    May 13, 2003

    (CA-99-692-5)

    Decided:

    May 21, 2003

    Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    George Miller, Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    George Miller petitions for a writ of mandamus alleging that
    the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C.
    2254 (2000) petition. He seeks an order from this court directing
    the district court to act. After Miller filed the instant mandamus
    petition, the district court entered an order denying relief on
    Millers habeas petition.

    Accordingly, we deny Millers mandamus

    petition as moot but grant his motion to proceed in forma pauperis.


    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

    You might also like