In Re: Payne v., 08-1539 (2008)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 08-1539
Visitors: 28
Filed: Jul. 01, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1539 In Re: LEO LIONEL PAYNE, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:07-cv-00614-JRS) Submitted: June 13, 2008 Decided: July 1, 2008 Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leo Lionel Payne, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Virginia inmate Leo Lionel Payne petitions
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1539 In Re: LEO LIONEL PAYNE, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:07-cv-00614-JRS) Submitted: June 13, 2008 Decided: July 1, 2008 Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leo Lionel Payne, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Virginia inmate Leo Lionel Payne petitions f..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1539 In Re: LEO LIONEL PAYNE, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:07-cv-00614-JRS) Submitted: June 13, 2008 Decided: July 1, 2008 Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leo Lionel Payne, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Virginia inmate Leo Lionel Payne petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to issue a decision in Payne’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) action. The last district court action occurred on November 19, 2007, when the district court granted Payne leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We find that mandamus relief is not warranted at this time because the delay since the district court’s last significant action is not unreasonable. Accordingly, we deny Payne’s mandamus petition without prejudice to the filing of another such petition if the district court does not act expeditiously. 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
