Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    David Conley filed four petitions for writs of mandamus seeking various orders from the court. The court denied all four petitions, finding that Conley was not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus is a drastic remedy only used in extraordinary circumstances. The court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials. Additionally, the specific relief sought by Conley, such as ordering investigations or rehearings, is not available through mandamus. Therefore, the court denied the petitions.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views4 pages
    David Conley filed four petitions for writs of mandamus seeking various orders from the court. The court denied all four petitions, finding that Conley was not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus is a drastic remedy only used in extraordinary circumstances. The court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials. Additionally, the specific relief sought by Conley, such as ordering investigations or rehearings, is not available through mandamus. Therefore, the court denied the petitions.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-07-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-1149

    Original Title

    In Re: David Conley v., 4th Cir. (2014)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    David Conley filed four petitions for writs of mandamus seeking various orders from the court. The court denied all four petitions, finding that Conley was not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus is a drastic remedy only used in extraordinary circumstances. The court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials. Additionally, the specific relief sought by Conley, such as ordering investigations or rehearings, is not available through mandamus. Therefore, the court denied the petitions.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    6 views4 pages

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    David Conley filed four petitions for writs of mandamus seeking various orders from the court. The court denied all four petitions, finding that Conley was not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus is a drastic remedy only used in extraordinary circumstances. The court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials. Additionally, the specific relief sought by Conley, such as ordering investigations or rehearings, is not available through mandamus. Therefore, the court denied the petitions.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 14-1149

    In Re:

    DAVID CONLEY,
    Petitioner.

    No. 14-1249

    In Re:

    DAVID CONLEY,
    Petitioner.

    No. 14-1374

    In Re:

    DAVID CONLEY,
    Petitioner.

    No. 14-1449

    In Re:

    DAVID CONLEY,
    Petitioner.

    On Petitions for Writs of Mandamus.


    (5:13-ct-03251-F)

    Submitted:

    June 26, 2014

    Decided:

    July 1, 2014

    Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    David Conley, Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    David Conley petitions for writs of mandamus seeking
    orders compelling the Department of Justice to investigate his
    42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) claims, requiring a state official to
    rehear his claims of innocence, and directing the district court
    to serve his complaint, require defendants to file an answer,
    and find that his complaint states a claim.

    We conclude that

    Conley is not entitled to mandamus relief.


    Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used
    only in extraordinary circumstances.

    Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court,

    426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d
    509,

    516-17

    (4th

    Cir.

    2003).

    Further,

    mandamus

    relief

    is

    available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the


    relief sought.

    In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn, 860 F.2d

    135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).

    This court does not have jurisdiction

    to grant mandamus relief against state officials.

    Gurley v.

    Superior Court of Mecklenburg Cnty., 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir.
    1969).
    The relief sought by Conley is not available by way of
    mandamus.
    mandamus.
    legal

    Accordingly,

    we

    deny

    the

    petitions

    for

    writs

    of

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

    contentions

    are

    adequately

    presented

    in

    the

    materials

    before

    this

    court

    and

    argument

    would

    not

    aid

    the

    decisional

    process.
    PETITIONS DENIED

    You might also like