In Re: Tucker v., No. 07-6810 (4th Cir. 2007)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6810 In Re: CORNELIUS TUCKER, JR., Petitioner. No. 07-7056 In Re: CORNELIUS TUCKER, JR., Petitioner. On Petitions for Writ of Mandamus. (5:07-hc-02039; 5:07-hc-02128-H) Submitted: September 10, 2007 Decided: September 21, 2007 Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cornelius Tucker, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: In these consolidated petitions, Cornelius Tucker, Jr., petitions for writs of mandamus seeking orders directing two district court judges to appoint a psychiatrist to examine Tucker, and to hold a hearing under 18 U.S.C. § 4243(c) (2000). We conclude that Tucker is not entitled to the requested relief. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). drastic remedy circumstances. and should be used Further, mandamus is a only in extraordinary Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). In a prior appeal, we approved the district court s decision to delay the § 4243(c) hearing until Tucker s release from state custody. United States v. Tucker, 153 F. App x 173 (4th Cir. 2005) (No. 054336(L)). Nothing has changed in the interim to affect that decision. See Tucker v. United States, 197 F. App x 230 (4th Cir. 2006) (No. 06-6046) (affirming district court s denial of 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition raising similar claim). Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis mandamus. in No. 07-6810, We dispense with we deny oral the petitions argument - 2 - for writ of because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITIONS DENIED - 3 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.