Case ID: f-appx_597/html/0205-02.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 Alexander Otis MATTHEWS, Petitioner. In re Alexander Otis Matthews, Petitioner.
    Nos. 14-2303, 14-2304.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 17, 2015.
    Decided: March 19, 2015.
    Alexander Otis Matthews, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Petitions denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Alexander Matthews petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to permit inmates to keep transcripts in their cells and to permit the filing of attorney misconduct claims. He also seeks to have this court reconsider our prior decision denying a certificate of appealability. We conclude that Matthews is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States 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 may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).

The relief sought by Matthews is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petitions and amended petitions 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.

PETITIONS DENIED.