Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: Johnson V., 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    Terry Kermit Johnson filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, alleging that the district court unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. While the court found that the delay since the last significant action (the denial of Johnson's motion to amend his § 2255 motion in August 2005) was not unreasonable, it denied the mandamus petition without prejudice, allowing Johnson to file another petition if the district court does not rule expeditiously. The court also granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and denied Johnson's motion to expedite consideration of the petition.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-05-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-7876

    Original Title

    In Re: Johnson v., 4th Cir. (2006)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Terry Kermit Johnson filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, alleging that the district court unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. While the court found that the delay since the last significant action (the denial of Johnson's motion to amend his § 2255 motion in August 2005) was not unreasonable, it denied the mandamus petition without prejudice, allowing Johnson to file another petition if the district court does not rule expeditiously. The court also granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and denied Johnson's motion to expedite consideration of the petition.

    Copyright:

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

    In Re: Johnson V., 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Terry Kermit Johnson filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, alleging that the district court unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. While the court found that the delay since the last significant action (the denial of Johnson's motion to amend his § 2255 motion in August 2005) was not unreasonable, it denied the mandamus petition without prejudice, allowing Johnson to file another petition if the district court does not rule expeditiously. The court also granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and denied Johnson's motion to expedite consideration of the petition.

    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. 05-7876

    In Re:

    TERRY KERMIT JOHNSON,

    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.


    (CA-03-49-5)

    Submitted:

    April 12, 2006

    Decided:

    May 18, 2006

    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Terry Kermit Johnson, Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Terry Kermit Johnson petitions for writ of mandamus,
    alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28
    U.S.C. 2255 (2000) motion.

    He seeks an order from this court

    directing the district court to act.

    The last significant action

    in the district court was the August 2005 denial of Johnsons


    motion to amend his 2255 motion.
    relief

    is

    not

    warranted

    because

    Although we find that mandamus


    the

    delay

    since

    the

    last

    significant action is not unreasonable, we deny the mandamus


    petition without prejudice to the filing of another mandamus
    petition if the district court does not rule expeditiously on
    Johnsons 2255 motion.

    We grant leave to proceed in forma

    pauperis, and deny Johnsons motion to expedite consideration of


    this petition.

    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