In re: Alexander Matthew

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [1000076742-2], denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [1000029423-2]; granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [1000029424-2] Originating case number: 1:11-cr-00087-LO-1,1:11-cr-00348-LO-1,1:12-cv-00132-LO Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000088138]. Mailed to: Alexander Matthews. [17-1238]

Appeal: 17-1238

Doc: 6

Filed: 05/25/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1238

In re: ALEXANDER OTIS MATTHEWS,
Petitioner,

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(1:11-cr-00087-LO-1; 1:11-cr-00348-LO-1; 1:12-cv-00132-LO)

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alexander Otis Matthews, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Decided: May 25, 2017

Appeal: 17-1238

Doc: 6

Filed: 05/25/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Alexander Otis Matthews petitions for a writ of mandamus. He seeks an order
from this court directing the district court to act on this court’s judgment vacating the
district court’s order and remanding. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals
that the district court entered an order on April 19, 2017, directing Matthews to notify the
district court within 30 days whether he wishes to delete his successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2012) claims from his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, or whether he wishes to have the
entire Rule 60(b) motion treated as a successive § 2255 application.

Accordingly,

because the district court has recently acted on Matthews’ case, we deny the mandamus
petition as moot. Matthews also filed a supplemental petition for a writ of mandamus
seeking an order directing the Government to respond to the successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255
claims. Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin
Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). Thus, the relief sought in the supplemental
petition is not available by way of mandamus. We grant leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. 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