In Re: Sean Lamont Dudley, No. 09-1871 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1871 In Re: SEAN LAMONT DUDLEY, a/k/a John D. Brown, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Submitted: March 16, 2010 (5:97-cr-00001-RLV) Decided: April 7, 2010 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sean Lamont Dudley, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sean Lamont Dudley has petitioned this court for a writ of mandamus. (i) order the In his petition, Dudley asks this court to: district currently stalled affirming the on court its district to adjudicate court s matters (ii) docket; the its mandate recall judgment; or (iii) give sua sponte consideration to whether the district court had authority to accept (requiring his a guilty district plea under court to Fed. R. determine Crim. P. whether 11(b)(3) there is a factual basis for a guilty plea). To obtain mandamus relief, a petitioner must show that: (1) he has a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought; (2) the responding party has a clear duty to do the specific act requested; (3) the act requested is an official act or duty; (4) there are no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires; and (5) the issuance of the writ will effect right and justice in the circumstances. In re Braxton, quotation marks 258 F.3d and 250, citation 261 (4th Cir. omitted). We 2001) have (internal considered Dudley s petition and the district court docket sheet and find that the district stalled motions. requests for court has recently disposed of Dudley s We further conclude that Dudley s remaining relief do not meet the exacting requirements necessary for the issuance of a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and grant 2 Dudley s motion to supplement his mandamus petition, we deny the mandamus petition. facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the 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.
