Siddha v. Office of the Attorney General et al, No. 1:2023cv02104 - Document 8 (D. Md. 2023)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Peter J. Messitte on 10/12/2023. (c/m 10/13/2023 - bw5s, Deputy Clerk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Siddha v. Office of the Attorney General et al Doc. 8 Case 1:23-cv-02104-PJM Document 8 Filed 10/12/23 Page 1 of 2 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:23-cv-02104-PJM Document 8 Filed 10/12/23 Page 2 of 2 jJ5ยป a duty owed to a petitioner. However, this Court has no mandamus jurisdiction over county or state employees, including the respondent in this case. See generally Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County,411 F.2d 586,587(4th Cir. 1969). Siddha also filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel, ECF No. 5, and a motion styled "Motion to Grant Plaintiff Relief Under Mandamus Rules," which appears to reiterate the issues raised in the initial filing, ECF No. 7. As the case shall be dismissed, these motions will be denied as moot. A separate Order follows. I Date 7y5 7 PEXfeR J. MESSITTE mnEDyi:ates district judge
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
