Scribd Logo
Carica

Benvenuto in Scribd!

  • In Re: Marvin A. Leifried, 842 F.2d 1291, 4th Cir. (1988)

    Caricato da

    Scribd Government Docs
    23 visualizzazioni2 pagine
    Marvin Leifried applied for a writ of mandamus or leave to file an interlocutory appeal from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court denied the request, finding that a writ of mandamus was not justified at this time as they are extraordinary writs that are sparingly exercised. Additionally, Leifried did not show that an order existed that would allow for an interlocutory appeal under the relevant statute. The court dismissed the petition but noted this did not prevent Leifried from taking further action if there was inordinate delay by the lower courts in addressing his pending motion.

    Descrizione originale:

    Filed: 1988-03-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 842 F.2d 1291 Docket: 88-8005

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Formati disponibili

    PDF o leggi online da Scribd

    Hai trovato utile questo documento?

    Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

    Segnala questo documento
    Marvin Leifried applied for a writ of mandamus or leave to file an interlocutory appeal from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court denied the request, finding that a writ of mandamus was not justified at this time as they are extraordinary writs that are sparingly exercised. Additionally, Leifried did not show that an order existed that would allow for an interlocutory appeal under the relevant statute. The court dismissed the petition but noted this did not prevent Leifried from taking further action if there was inordinate delay by the lower courts in addressing his pending motion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Scarica in formato PDF o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    23 visualizzazioni2 pagine

    In Re: Marvin A. Leifried, 842 F.2d 1291, 4th Cir. (1988)

    Caricato da

    Scribd Government Docs
    Marvin Leifried applied for a writ of mandamus or leave to file an interlocutory appeal from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court denied the request, finding that a writ of mandamus was not justified at this time as they are extraordinary writs that are sparingly exercised. Additionally, Leifried did not show that an order existed that would allow for an interlocutory appeal under the relevant statute. The court dismissed the petition but noted this did not prevent Leifried from taking further action if there was inordinate delay by the lower courts in addressing his pending motion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Scarica in formato PDF o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    di 2

    842 F.

    2d 1291
    Unpublished Disposition

    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of


    unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
    res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
    service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
    Circuit.
    In Re: Marvin A. Leifried, Petitioner.
    No. 88-8005.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    March 18, 1988.

    Marvin A. Leifried, Petitioner Pro Se.


    Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and SPROUSE, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:

    Petitioner Marvin A. Leifried has applied to this Court for a writ of mandamus
    or leave to file an interlocutory appeal.

    After review of Leifried's petition, we find that issuance of a writ of mandamus


    is inappropriate at this time. Writs of mandamus are extraordinary writs, and
    the power to issue them is sparingly exercised. Kerr v. United States District
    Court, 426 U.S. 394 (1976). Leifried has also not shown that an order exists
    which would justify granting leave to file an interlocutory appeal under 28
    U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b); Leifried's concern is, in fact, that the district court has
    failed to act on Leifried's Sec. 2255 motion as quickly as Leifried would like.

    Accordingly, although leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, the


    petition for writ of mandamus or leave to file an interlocutory appeal is denied,
    and this action is dismissed.*

    DISMISSED.

    That action does not foreclose appropriate steps by us should there be


    inordinate delay by the magistrate or the district court on the 28 U.S.C. Sec.
    2255 claim

    Potrebbero piacerti anche