In re: William H. Evans, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for other relief [999646058-2]; denying Motion for initial hearing en banc (FRAP 35) [999640918-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999633304-2] Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00138-AJT-JFA,1:14-cv-01015-AJT-IDD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999725186]. Mailed to: William H. Evans Jr. ROSS CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. Box 7010 16149 State Route 104 Chillicothe, OH 45601. [15-1860]

Appeal: 15-1860

Doc: 14

Filed: 12/28/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1860

In Re:

WILLIAM H. EVANS, JR.,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(1:15-cv-00138-AJT-JFA;
1:14-cv-01015-AJT-IDD)

Submitted:

November 4, 2015

Before DUNCAN
Circuit Judge.

and

DIAZ,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

December 28, 2015

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William H. Evans, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1860

Doc: 14

Filed: 12/28/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
William H. Evans, Jr., petitions for a writ of mandamus,
alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his
complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents
of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and his 28
U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition.

He seeks an order from this

court directing the district court to act.

Our review of the

district court’s dockets reveals that the district court has
dismissed

his

Bivens

complaint

and

transferred

his

§ 2241

petition to the district where he is currently in custody.
Accordingly, because the district court has recently acted
in Evans’ cases, we deny the mandamus petition as moot.

We deny

his

certain

motion

to

order

corrections

officials

to

take

actions, and deny his petition for rehearing en banc without
prejudice to his right to refile the petition if he so chooses
within the time allowed.

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

2