In re: Sean Lamont Dudley, a/k/a John D. Brown

UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 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

-- 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

-- 3 of 3 --