In re: James Maloyd Hunter, Ii

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-2202
In re: JAMES MALOYD HUNTER, II,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. (2:23-cr-00003-RAJ-RJK-1; 2:24-cv-00464-RAJ)
Submitted: December 18, 2025 Decided: December 22, 2025
Before NIEMEYER and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Maloyd Hunter, II, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
James Maloyd Hunter, II, petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district
court has unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, which Hunter filed in
July 2024. Hunter asks this court to enforce the district court’s compliance with the
statutory time limits contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2266.
Review of the district court’s docket reveals that just before Hunter, in January
2025, filed a reply to the Government’s response to his § 2255 motion, Hunter filed an
interlocutory appeal, which he moved to voluntarily dismiss in March 2025. See United
States v. Hunter, Appeal No. 25-6022 (ECF Nos. 5-6). Although seven months passed
without any action on the § 2255 motion after the matter was returned to the district court,
by order entered October 7, 2025, the district court appointed Hunter an attorney to assist
him with the § 2255 motion. And by order entered October 30, 2025, the district court
ordered Hunter to advise the court whether he wished to proceed pro se. Hunter only
recently responded to the district court’s October 30 order on November 7, 2025. See
Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (holding that a pro se prisoner’s notice of appeal
is considered filed the moment it is delivered to prison authorities for mailing to the court).
Thus, to the extent that Hunter asks us to order the district court to decide the § 2255
motion, the present record reveals no undue delay in Hunter’s habeas proceeding. We
therefore deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

-- 2 of 3 --

3
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

-- 3 of 3 --