Court Opinion

ID: 9374422
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 21:00:46.87609+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:47.276482
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2202      Doc: 15         Filed: 02/21/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-2202

        In re: BRANDON PICKENS,

                            Petitioner.

                        On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:22-cv-00102-MR)

        Submitted: February 16, 2023                                 Decided: February 21, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Brandon Michael Pickens, Petitioner Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2202         Doc: 15       Filed: 02/21/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Brandon Pickens petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court

        has unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Pickens seeks an order from

        this court directing the district court to act. Review of the district court’s docket confirms,

        though, that there has been no undue delay by the district court. And while Pickens relies

        on the time limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2266(b)(1)(A) (“A district court shall render

        a final determination and enter a final judgment on any application for a writ of habeas

        corpus brought under this chapter in a capital case not later than 450 days after the date on

        which the application is filed, or 60 days after the date on which the case is submitted for

        decision, whichever is earlier”), this provision is inapplicable because Pickens is

        challenging the imposition of a prison disciplinary sanction, and nothing in the available

        materials suggests that he is serving a death sentence. Accordingly, we 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