Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02080/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02080-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richard DeBlois
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2080

In Re: RICHARD DEBLOIS,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. 

(1:12-cv-00100-CCB)

Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: March 8, 2016

Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard DeBlois, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2080 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/08/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Richard DeBlois petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an 

order requiring the district court to reopen his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 (2012) petition and granting a certificate of 

appealability. We conclude that DeBlois 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 (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 DeBlois is not available by way of 

mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, we deny his petition for writ of mandamus and 

his amended 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

Appeal: 15-2080 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/08/2016 Pg: 2 of 2