Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-02291/USCOURTS-ca4-14-02291-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alexander Matthews
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2291

IN RE: ALEXANDER MATTHEWS,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

 (1:12-cv-00132-LO; 1:11-cr-00348-LO-1; 1:11-cr-00087-LO-1)

Submitted: April 16, 2015 Decided: April 20, 2015

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

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alexander Matthews, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-2291 Doc: 21 Filed: 04/20/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Alexander Matthews petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking 

an order directing the district court to fully address all 

claims in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. 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. 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 Matthews 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 and 

all associated supplemental and amended petitions. 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: 14-2291 Doc: 21 Filed: 04/20/2015 Pg: 2 of 2