Court Opinion

ID: 9365018
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-20 21:00:46.631832+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:42.569874
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2200      Doc: 10         Filed: 01/19/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-2200

        In re: BRANDON PICKENS,

                            Petitioner.

                        On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:22-cv-00129-MR)

        Submitted: January 17, 2023                                       Decided: January 19, 2023

        Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, 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        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-2200        Doc: 10        Filed: 01/19/2023     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. There has been no undue delay in 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