Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: DeBardeleben V., 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views2 pages
    James DeBardeleben filed a petition for a writ of mandamus alleging that the district court improperly refused to file his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appeals court reviewed the docket sheet and found that the district court had in fact filed DeBardeleben's motion and issued a final order dismissing it as successive. As the district court had already taken the action requested in the petition, the appeals court denied the mandamus petition as moot.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-06-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-6341

    Original Title

    In Re: DeBardeleben v., 4th Cir. (2005)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    James DeBardeleben filed a petition for a writ of mandamus alleging that the district court improperly refused to file his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appeals court reviewed the docket sheet and found that the district court had in fact filed DeBardeleben's motion and issued a final order dismissing it as successive. As the district court had already taken the action requested in the petition, the appeals court denied the mandamus petition as moot.

    Copyright:

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

    In Re: DeBardeleben V., 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    James DeBardeleben filed a petition for a writ of mandamus alleging that the district court improperly refused to file his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appeals court reviewed the docket sheet and found that the district court had in fact filed DeBardeleben's motion and issued a final order dismissing it as successive. As the district court had already taken the action requested in the petition, the appeals court denied the mandamus petition as moot.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 05-6341

    In Re: JAMES M. DEBARDELEBEN,


    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

    Submitted:

    June 8, 2005

    (CR-83-50)

    Decided:

    June 21, 2005

    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    James M. DeBardeleben, Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    James M. DeBardeleben petitions for a writ of mandamus,
    alleging the district court has improperly refused to file his 28
    U.S.C. 2255 (2000) motion.

    He seeks an order from this court

    directing the district court to file his motion.

    Our review of the

    docket sheet reveals that the district court filed DeBardelebens


    motion

    and

    successive.

    issued

    final

    order

    dismissing

    the

    motion

    as

    DeBardeleben v. United States, No. 3:05-cv-00176

    (W.D.N.C. Apr. 28, 2005).

    Accordingly, because the district court

    has taken the action DeBardeleben seeks, we deny the mandamus


    petition as moot.

    We grant leave 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

    - 2 -

    You might also like