Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

In Re Felix v., 03-7245 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-7245 Visitors: 9
Filed: Feb. 13, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7245 In Re: DANIEL E. FELIX, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-02-46-AM) Submitted: January 21, 2004 Decided: February 13, 2004 Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel E. Felix, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Daniel E. Felix petitions this
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7245 In Re: DANIEL E. FELIX, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-02-46-AM) Submitted: January 21, 2004 Decided: February 13, 2004 Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel E. Felix, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Daniel E. Felix petitions this court for mandamus relief, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed acting on his habeas corpus petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). He also complains of judicial bias. Since the filing of this petition, the district court has entered a final judgment order in the underlying case. Consequently, respondent has moved to dismiss the mandamus petition. We grant the motion to dismiss the petition as moot because the district court has completed its consideration of the habeas petition and judicial disqualification at this time would serve no purpose in furtherance of Felix’s claim. Felix may, however, choose to raise the latter issue in seeking an appeal from this court. Accordingly, we grant Respondent’s motion to dismiss and deny the petition for mandamus as moot. We grant Felix leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny his motion for injunction. 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 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer