Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

In re: Newton v., 09-1720 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 09-1720 Visitors: 16
Filed: Oct. 23, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1720 In Re: SHAWN NEWTON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:09-ct-03002-H) Submitted: October 20, 2009 Decided: October 23, 2009 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shawn Newton, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Shawn Newton petitions for a wri
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1720 In Re: SHAWN NEWTON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:09-ct-03002-H) Submitted: October 20, 2009 Decided: October 23, 2009 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shawn Newton, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Shawn Newton petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) motion. The case number Newton references in his mandamus petition, however, corresponds to one of his pending civil rights complaints, rather than a § 2241 petition. We construe Newton’s mandamus petition as seeking an order from this court directing the district court to act on the pending civil rights complaint and we find that mandamus relief is not warranted because the delay is not unreasonable. Therefore, we deny the mandamus petition without prejudice to the filing of another mandamus petition if the district court does not act expeditiously. We grant 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

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