In Re: Jimmie Grubbs, No. 12-1970 (4th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1970 In Re: JIMMIE VANCE GRUBBS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:06-cr-00048-RJC-CH-1; 3:11-cv-00125-RJC) Submitted: November 7, 2012 Decided: November 29, 2012 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jimmie Vance Grubbs, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jimmie Vance Grubbs petitions for a writ of mandamus, asking this court to grant sua sponte his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion to vacate his conviction and sentence, currently pending in immediate release. the district court, and to direct his We conclude that Grubbs is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in Dist. extraordinary Court, Moussaoui, mandamus 426 333 U.S. F.3d relief circumstances. is 394, 509, 402 516-17 available (1976); (4th only clear right to the relief sought. Kerr United United Cir. when v. the States States 2003). 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. Mandamus may not be In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). The relief sought by Grubbs is not available by way of mandamus, as he may continue to pursue it via § 2255 in the district court and, if he is dissatisfied with the district court s ultimate ruling, he may seek to appeal in this court. To the extent Grubbs complains of delay by the district court, we find the present record does not reveal undue delay. Accordingly, while we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral argument 2 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 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.