In Re: Roderick Ford, No. 13-1739 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1739 In Re: RODERICK LAMART FORD, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (4:08-cr-00870-RBH-4) Submitted: July 23, 2013 Decided: August 1, 2013 Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roderick Lamart Ford, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Roderick Lamart Ford petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the United States Attorney s Office to file a Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 motion for a sentence reduction. In the alternative, Ford seeks leave § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion. to file a 28 U.S.C.A. We conclude that Ford is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only Dist. in extraordinary Court, Moussaoui, mandamus 426 333 relief circumstances. U.S. F.3d is 509, 394, 402 516-17 available only clear right to the relief sought. Kerr (1976); (4th when Cir. the v. United United 2003). States States v. Further, petitioner has a In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Ford has not shown that he has a clear right to an order directing the United States Attorney s Office to file a Rule 35 motion. Ford is also not eligible for an order from this court authorizing leave to file a § 2255 motion. While this court may grant authorization under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2006) to file a second or successive § 2255 motion, our review of Ford s criminal docket sheet does not show that he filed his 2 first § 2255 motion. Thus, Ford does not need authorization from this court. * The relief sought by Ford is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED * While we decide that Ford does not need authorization from this court to file a second or successive § 2255 motion, we take no stand on the merits of any prospective § 2255 motion he may file. 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.