In Re: Brooks v., 05-6128 (2005)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 05-6128
Visitors: 13
Filed: Apr. 12, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6128 In Re: STEPHAN D. BROOKS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-03-325) Submitted: March 23, 2005 Decided: April 12, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephan D. Brooks, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Stephan D. Brooks petitions for writ of mandamus,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6128 In Re: STEPHAN D. BROOKS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-03-325) Submitted: March 23, 2005 Decided: April 12, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephan D. Brooks, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Stephan D. Brooks petitions for writ of mandamus, a..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6128 In Re: STEPHAN D. BROOKS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-03-325) Submitted: March 23, 2005 Decided: April 12, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephan D. Brooks, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Stephan D. Brooks petitions for writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Although we find that mandamus relief is not warranted because the delay is not unreasonable, we deny the mandamus petition without prejudice to the filing of another mandamus petition if the district court does not act expeditiously. We grant Brooks’s motion for 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 -
Source: CourtListener
