In re: Martineous Hopper

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [998826924-2], updating fee code Originating case number: 1:05-cr-00031-MR-2,1:08-cv-00442-LHT Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998906991]. Mailed to: Martineous Hopper. [12-1396]

Appeal: 12-1396

Doc: 7

Filed: 08/01/2012

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1396

In re:

MARTINEOUS LEON HOPPER,

Petitioner.

On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus.
(1:05-cr-00031-MR-2; 1:08-cv-00442-LHT)

Submitted:

July 26, 2012

Decided:

August 1, 2012

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Martineous Leon Hopper, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-1396

Doc: 7

Filed: 08/01/2012

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Martineous

Leon

Hopper

petitions

for

a

writ

of

mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to file
his second 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion.

We

conclude that Hopper is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used
only

in

Dist.

extraordinary

Court,

Moussaoui,
mandamus

426

333

U.S.

F.3d

relief

circumstances.

is

394,

509,

402

516-17

available

(1976);
(4th

only

clear right to the relief sought.

Kerr

v.

United

Cir.

when

United

the

States

States

2003).

v.

Further,

petitioner

has

a

In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan

Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).
It appears from the district court docket sheet in an
entry dated June 1, 2012, that a § 2255 motion is pending.
June

1

document

addendum

to

the

is

the

same

present

memorandum

mandamus

of

law

petition.

filed

as

The
an

Accordingly,

although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny
the petition for writ of mandamus as moot.
oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

We dispense with

legal
before

contentions
the

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

2