In re: Derrell Gilchrist, No. 18-1611 (4th Cir. 2018)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1611 In re: DERRELL LAMONT GILCHRIST, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (8:02-cr-00245-DKC-1) Submitted: October 29, 2018 Decided: November 7, 2018 Before WILKINSON and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Derrell Lamont Gilchrist, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Derrell Lamont Gilchrist petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his postjudgment motions challenging the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. The district court has stayed the action pending a decision by this Court in several cases challenging the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) (2012). “The determination by a district judge in granting or denying a motion to stay proceedings calls for an exercise of judgment to balance the various factors relevant to the expeditious and comprehensive disposition of the causes of action on the court’s docket.” United States v. Ga. Pac. Corp., 562 F.2d 294, 296 (4th Cir. 1977). In light of the district court’s reasonable use of its discretion here, we conclude that Gilchrist has not shown extraordinary circumstances justifying granting a writ of mandamus. See Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny the mandamus petition. 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

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.