In re: Rodney Justin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [998927123-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [998927121-2]. Originating case number: 1:09-cr-00066-JAB-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998977552]. Mailed to: Rodney Justin. [12-2056]

Appeal: 12-2056

Doc: 10

Filed: 11/08/2012

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2056

In re:

RODNEY K. JUSTIN,

Petitioner.

On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus.

Submitted:

September 21, 2012

(1:09-cr-00066-JAB-1)

Decided:

November 8, 2012

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rodney K. Justin, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-2056

Doc: 10

Filed: 11/08/2012

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Rodney K. Justin petitions for a writ of mandamus,
requesting that this court order several attorneys involved in
his trial and direct appeal to turn over to Justin certain legal
records, and seeking that the district court be directed to give
Justin access to various transcripts and to equitably toll the
limitations

period

applicable

to

his

anticipated

28

U.S.C.A.

§ 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion.
Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that
Justin has requested identical relief from the district court.
Moreover, the district court in August 2012 referred each of
Justin’s pending motions to a magistrate judge for resolution.
Because

it

is

clear

that

Justin

may

obtain

relief

in

an

alternate venue and that the district court has not unreasonably
delayed

in

its

adjudication

of

Justin’s

relief is inappropriate in this case.
Dist.

Court,

426

U.S.

394,

402

assertions,

mandamus

Kerr v. United States

(1976);

United

States

v.

Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003).
Accordingly, although we grant Justin leave to proceed
in forma pauperis, we deny his petition for writ of mandamus.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2