In re: Charlette Johnson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999687429-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999711397-2], denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999673888-2] Originating case number: 7:10-cr-00093-BR-1,7:15-cv-00063 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999720128].. [15-2193]

Appeal: 15-2193

Doc: 7

Filed: 12/17/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2193

In Re:

CHARLETTE DUFRAY JOHNSON, a/k/a Charlotte Johnson,
Petitioner.

On Petitions for Writ of Mandamus. (7:10-cr-00093-BR-1;
7:15-cv-00063)

Submitted:

December 15, 2015

Before GREGORY
Circuit Judge.

and

FLOYD,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

December 17, 2015

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charlette Dufray Johnson, Petitoner Pro Se.
Seth Morgan Wood,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2193

Doc: 7

Filed: 12/17/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Charlette Dufray Johnson petitions for a writ of mandamus,
alleging that the district court has unduly delayed acting on
her motion for release of grand jury transcripts or dismissal of
her convictions and sentence.

She seeks an order from this

court directing the district court to grant her motion.
Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the
district

court

November

6,

issued

2015.

an

order

Because

the

denying
district

Johnson’s
court

motion

has

on

recently

decided Johnson’s motion, her demand for an order directing the
district court to cease delaying its ruling is moot.

Moreover,

insofar as Johnson seeks an order directing the district court
to grant her motion, such relief is not available by way of
mandamus.

See In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353

(4th Cir. 2007) (recognizing that mandamus may not be used as
substitute for appeal).
Accordingly, we deny the mandamus petition.
to proceed in forma pauperis.

We grant leave

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