Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-01871/USCOURTS-ca4-09-01871-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sean Lamont Dudley
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED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. (5:97-cr-00001-RLV)

Submitted: March 16, 2010 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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-1871 Doc: 20 Filed: 04/07/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Sean Lamont Dudley has petitioned this court for a 

writ of mandamus. In his petition, Dudley asks this court to: 

(i) order the district court to “adjudicate the matters 

currently stalled on its docket;” (ii) recall its mandate 

affirming the district court’s judgment; or (iii) give sua 

sponte consideration to whether the district court had authority 

to accept his guilty plea under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3) 

(requiring a district court to determine whether 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, 258 F.3d 250, 261 (4th Cir. 2001) (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted). We have considered 

Dudley’s petition and the district court docket sheet and find 

that the district court has recently disposed of Dudley’s 

“stalled” motions. We further conclude that Dudley’s remaining 

requests for 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 

Appeal: 09-1871 Doc: 20 Filed: 04/07/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

Dudley’s motion to supplement his mandamus petition, we deny the 

mandamus petition. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED

Appeal: 09-1871 Doc: 20 Filed: 04/07/2010 Pg: 3 of 3