Filed: Jan. 11, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7485 In Re: MICHAEL A. WILLIAMS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-01-222-1) Submitted: December 17, 2001 Decided: January 11, 2002 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael A. Williams, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael A. Williams petitions this court
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7485 In Re: MICHAEL A. WILLIAMS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-01-222-1) Submitted: December 17, 2001 Decided: January 11, 2002 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael A. Williams, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael A. Williams petitions this court f..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7485
In Re: MICHAEL A. WILLIAMS,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-01-222-1)
Submitted: December 17, 2001 Decided: January 11, 2002
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael A. Williams, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael A. Williams petitions this court for a writ of manda-
mus to compel the district court to rule on his pending petition
under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001), which he filed
on March 12, 2001. The granting of a writ of mandamus is a drastic
remedy to be used in extraordinary circumstances. In re Beard,
811
F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Williams’ petition does not set
forth exceptional circumstances as would warrant the issuance of a
writ of mandamus at this time. We note, however, that no signifi-
cant action has been taken in the district court for over seven
months.
Accordingly, we deny Williams’ petition without prejudice to
his refiling it should the district court fail to act within a rea-
sonable time. We grant Williams’ application to proceed on appeal
in forma pauperis and 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