In Re: Deborah Bordeaux, No. 09-2250 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2250 In re: DEBORAH BORDEAUX, Petitioner. On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus. Submitted: June 21, 2010 (4:09-cv-70013-TLW) Decided: July 9, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Deborah Bordeaux, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Deborah Bordeaux petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. She seeks an order from this court directing the district court to issue a decision on the motion within twenty days of the date of this order. also seeks an order directing that the judge should She recuse himself and that the district court should inform the Internal Revenue Service ( IRS ) that the forfeiture amount was not income. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only Dist. in extraordinary Court, Moussaoui, mandamus 426 333 relief U.S. F.3d is Kerr circumstances. 394, 509, 402 516-17 available only clear right to the relief sought. (1976); (4th the 2003). States States v. Further, petitioner has a In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). used as a substitute for appeal. United United Cir. when v. Mandamus may not be In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). We find there has been no undue delay in the district court with regard to reaching a decision on the § 2255 motion. We further find Bordeaux s request that this court order the district court to assign a new judge is moot. After Bordeaux filed the the petition for a writ 2 of mandamus, case was reassigned. We also find Bordeaux fails to show she has a clear right to an order from this court directing the district court to inform the IRS that the forfeiture amount was not income. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral contentions argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal before the court are and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION 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.
