Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02412/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02412-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Andrew Charles Jackson
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2412

In re: ANDREW CHARLES JACKSON, a/k/a William Benbow, a/k/a 

Ricky Antonio Bady, a/k/a Sway,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. 

(3:00-cr-00006-GMG-JES-1; 3:00-cr-00046-JPB-RWT-1)

Submitted: April 21, 2016 Decided: April 25, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew Charles Jackson, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2412 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/25/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Andrew Charles Jackson petitions for a writ of mandamus 

seeking an order declaring void the district court’s order 

denying Jackson’s motion for production of jury voir dire 

transcripts. We conclude that Jackson 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 Jackson is not available by way of 

mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in 

forma 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

Appeal: 15-2412 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/25/2016 Pg: 2 of 2