Filed: Dec. 07, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7155 In Re: WAYNE THOMAS JOHNSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 7, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wayne Thomas Johnson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Wayne T. Johnson petitions this court for a wri
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7155 In Re: WAYNE THOMAS JOHNSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 7, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wayne Thomas Johnson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Wayne T. Johnson petitions this court for a writ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7155
In Re: WAYNE THOMAS JOHNSON,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 7, 2000
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wayne Thomas Johnson, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Wayne T. Johnson petitions this court for a writ of mandamus
directing a North Carolina state court to act on Johnson’s Motion
for Appropriate Relief. Federal courts have no general power to
compel action by state courts. See Davis v. Lansing,
851 F.2d 72,
74 (2d Cir. 1988); Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County,
411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, while we grant
Johnson’s motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, we deny
his petition for a writ of mandamus, his motion for general relief,
and his motion to compel a ruling. 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