Case ID: f-appx_672/html/0296-01.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: Maurice PARKER, Petitioner.
    No. 16-1776
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: December 12, 2016
    Decided: January 5, 2017
    Maurice Parker, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Before SHEDD and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Maurice Parker petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court judge to order the North Carolina Attorney General to investigate Parker’s claim of actual innocence. We conclude that Parker is not entitled to mandamus relief.

. 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). Mandamus “has traditionally been used in the federal courts only to confine an inferi- or court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so.” Moussaoui, 333 F.3d at 516 (internal quotation marks omitted).

The relief sought by Parker is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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.

PETITION DENIED