IN RE: Deandre JOHNSON (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.2021-09-13No. No. 21-1729

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court denied Johnson's mandamus petition because the record did not demonstrate undue delay by the district court, and Johnson failed to show a clear right to the habeas relief he sought.

Deandre Johnson sought a writ of mandamus against the district court, claiming it had unreasonably delayed ruling on his federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He asked the appellate court to order his immediate release and prevent retrial in state court. The court explained that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only when a petitioner has a clear legal right to the relief requested and only in exceptional circumstances.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether mandamus was available to challenge delay in ruling on a § 2254 habeas petition
Whether the district court committed undue delay
Whether Johnson demonstrated a clear right to the relief sought

Procedural posture

Johnson petitioned for a writ of mandamus in the appellate court seeking to compel the district court to rule on his pending federal habeas petition.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Deandre Johnson petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to grant his unconditional release and bar his retrial in state court.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380, 124 S.Ct. 2576, 159 L.Ed.2d 459 (2004); In re Murphy-Brown, LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795.

The relief sought by Johnson is not available by way of mandamus. The present record does not reveal undue delay by the district court. Moreover, insofar as Johnson seeks an order directing the district court to grant habeas relief, Johnson has not demonstrated a clear right to such relief. Accordingly, we deny the mandamus petition. 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

PER CURIAM:

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.