Filed: Jun. 23, 2020
Latest Update: Sep. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-2444 In re: JOHN MONROE WILSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:14-cr-00454-TDS-2) Submitted: June 15, 2020 Decided: June 23, 2020 Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Monroe Wilson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John Monroe Wilson petitions for
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-2444 In re: JOHN MONROE WILSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:14-cr-00454-TDS-2) Submitted: June 15, 2020 Decided: June 23, 2020 Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Monroe Wilson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John Monroe Wilson petitions for ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-2444
In re: JOHN MONROE WILSON,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:14-cr-00454-TDS-2)
Submitted: June 15, 2020 Decided: June 23, 2020
Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Monroe Wilson, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Monroe Wilson petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district
court has unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) and Fed. R. Crim. P.
52(b) motions. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. He also
requests an order instructing the district court to release him pending adjudication of his
claim, appoint counsel, and direct an expert evaluation. We conclude that Wilson is not
entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary
circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court,
542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); In re Murphy-
Brown, LLC,
907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). An undue delay in the district court may
qualify as an extraordinary circumstance justifying mandamus relief. See In re United
States ex rel. Drummond,
886 F.3d 448, 450 (5th Cir. 2018) (collecting cases). But
mandamus relief is not available if the petitioner has other adequate means to attain the
relief sought.
Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795.
Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court recently took
significant action on Wilson’s § 2255 and Rule 52(b) motions. Accordingly, we deny the
portion of the mandamus petition seeking a remedy for undue delay by the district court.
And, because Wilson has failed to establish that he has no other adequate means to attain
the additional relief he requests, we deny the remainder of his mandamus petition. We
grant Wilson leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
2
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3