Alfredo Beltran Leyva v. Federal Bureau of Prisons (bop)

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-7471
ALFREDO BELTRAN LEYVA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS (BOP); MICHAEL CARVAJAL, individually
and as the Director of the BOP; JAMES PETRUCCI, individually and as the
Mid-Atlantic Regional Director of the BOP; CATRICIA HOWARD, individually
and as an Assistant Director Corrections Program Division of the BOP; MICHAEL
FACEY, individually and as a Hearing Officer of the BOP; LINDA GETER,
individually and as the Chief of the Designation and Sentence Computation Center
of the BOP; RICHARD HUDGINS, individually and as the Complex Warden-
Hazelton of the BOP; STANLEY LOVETT, JR., individually and as the Complex
Warden-Hazelton of the BOP; LIEUTENANT VINCENT CRUZ, individually and
as a member of Special Investigative Services at USP Hazelton, BOP; JOHN/JANE
DOE 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, employees of the BOP,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:22-cv-00142-JPB-JPM)
Submitted: March 20, 2024 Decided: April 23, 2024
Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
ON BRIEF: Linda George, LINDA GEORGE, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Hackensack,
New Jersey, for Appellant. Morgan S. McKee, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia; Erin K.
Reisenweber, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Alfredo Beltran Leyva appeals from the district court’s order granting summary
judgment to Defendants* and dismissing his amended civil action. Leyva challenges the
grant of judgment to Defendants on his fourth cause of action requesting the issuance of a
writ of mandamus against the Bureau of Prisons. Leyva argues he is entitled to mandamus
relief and that the district court’s ruling was premature, since it issued before the
commencement of discovery. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we find
no abuse of discretion in the timing of the district court’s decision. See Shaw v. Foreman,
59 F.4th 121, 128-29 (4th Cir. 2023).
We review de novo the district court’s denial of the relief Leyva requested in his
fourth cause of action. See Smith v. CSRA, 12 F.4th 396, 402 (4th Cir. 2021);
Marquez-Ramos v. Reno, 69 F.3d 477, 479 (10th Cir. 1995). A plaintiff may be entitled to
mandamus relief where he demonstrates “he has a clear and indisputable right to the relief
sought” and “the responding party has a clear duty to do the specific act requested.” United
States ex rel. Rahman v. Oncology Assocs., P.C., 198 F.3d 502, 511 (4th Cir. 1999). As
Leyva has not shown his clear entitlement to the specific relief he requested, we discern no
reversible error in the district court’s denial of his fourth cause of action.
* The district court’s order granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the
alternative, for summary judgment. Because the district court considered matters outside
of the pleadings in making its rulings in this order, we treat the motion as one for summary
judgment. Edelman v. Lynchburg Coll., 300 F.3d 400, 404 (4th Cir. 2002).

-- 3 of 4 --

4
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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.
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --