In Re: Layton v., 02-6987 (2002)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 02-6987
Visitors: 29
Filed: Aug. 01, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6987 In Re: TIMOTHY LAYTON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-00-28) Submitted: July 19, 2002 Decided: August 1, 2002 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy Layton, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Timothy Layton has filed a
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6987 In Re: TIMOTHY LAYTON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-00-28) Submitted: July 19, 2002 Decided: August 1, 2002 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy Layton, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Timothy Layton has filed a p..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6987 In Re: TIMOTHY LAYTON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-00-28) Submitted: July 19, 2002 Decided: August 1, 2002 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy Layton, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Timothy Layton has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, asking this Court to direct the district court to rule on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2002) petition based on undue delay. Although we find that mandamus relief is not warranted because the delay is not unreasonable, we deny Layton’s petition for a writ of mandamus without prejudice to his ability to file a new petition for mandamus relief if the district court does not act expeditiously. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mandamus before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 2
Source: CourtListener
