Case ID: f-appx_700/html/0291-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

IN RE: Keith A. DAVIS, Petitioner. In re: Keith A. Davis, Petitioner.
    No. 17-1726, No. 17-1892
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: October 24, 2017
    Decided: November 7, 2017
    Keith A. Davis, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated cases, Keith A. Davis petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to vacate its order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2265 (2012) motion. We conclude that Davis is not entitled to the relief requested.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).

In this case, because mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal, In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007), the relief Davis seeks is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petitions and supplemental petition for writ of mandamus. We deny Davis’ motion to appoint counsel. 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.

PETITIONS DENIED