Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3 views

    In Re: Timothy Austin, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Timothy Austin filed a petition for a writ of mandamus alleging undue delay by the district court in acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. While the appellate court found the delay was not unreasonable, it denied the mandamus petition without prejudice, allowing Austin to file another petition if the district court does not act expeditiously. The appellate court granted Austin leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dispensed with oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    In Re: Timothy Austin, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    Timothy Austin filed a petition for a writ of mandamus alleging undue delay by the district court in acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. While the appellate court found the delay was not unreasonable, it denied the mandamus petition without prejudice, allowing Austin to file another petition if the district court does not act expeditiously. The appellate court granted Austin leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dispensed with oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-08-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-1839

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Timothy Austin filed a petition for a writ of mandamus alleging undue delay by the district court in acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. While the appellate court found the delay was not unreasonable, it denied the mandamus petition without prejudice, allowing Austin to file another petition if the district court does not act expeditiously. The appellate court granted Austin leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dispensed with oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    3 views2 pages

    In Re: Timothy Austin, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Timothy Austin filed a petition for a writ of mandamus alleging undue delay by the district court in acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. While the appellate court found the delay was not unreasonable, it denied the mandamus petition without prejudice, allowing Austin to file another petition if the district court does not act expeditiously. The appellate court granted Austin leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dispensed with oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 12-1839

    In re:

    TIMOTHY JARED AUSTIN,


    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.


    (No. 1:11-cv-00892)

    Submitted:

    August 16, 2012

    Decided:

    August 20, 2012

    Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Timothy Jared Austin, Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Timothy Jared Austin petitions for a writ of mandamus,
    alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28
    U.S.C. 2254 (2006) petition.

    He seeks an order from this

    court directing the district court to act.

    Although we find

    that mandamus relief is not warranted because the delay is not


    unreasonable, we deny the mandamus petition without prejudice to
    the filing of another mandamus petition if the district court
    does not act expeditiously.
    pauperis.
    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

    contentions
    the

    We grant leave to proceed in forma

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.

    PETITION DENIED

    You might also like