Court Opinion

ID: 9390155
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 21:01:24.112944+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:32.394596
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1210      Doc: 17         Filed: 04/25/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                No. 23-1210

        In re: MICHAEL J. MOLLER,

                            Petitioner.

        On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern
        District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. (5:23-ct-03001-M-RJ; 5:23-hc-02009-M-RJ)

        Submitted: April 20, 2023                                         Decided: April 25, 2023

        Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Michael J. Moller, Petitioner Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1210      Doc: 17          Filed: 04/25/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Michael J. Moller, a federal prisoner, petitions for a writ of mandamus, as

        supplemented and amended, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on

        his motions and requests for emergency injunctive relief in Moller’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241

        habeas petition and his civil action filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the

        Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Our review of the district court’s dockets

        reveals that, since the filing of this mandamus petition, the district court has (a) dismissed

        without prejudice Moller’s § 2241 petition; and (b) granted Moller’s motion for voluntary

        dismissal of his Bivens suit. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided

        both of Moller’s cases, we deny as moot the mandamus petition as amended and

        supplemented. We further deny Moller’s request to consolidate this mandamus action with

        the separate appeal pending in No. 23-6366, Moller v. Kelly, and deny as moot Moller’s

        motion to appoint counsel. 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