Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01614/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01614-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Frederick L. Howell
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1614

In Re: FREDERICK L. HOWELL,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition.

Submitted: September 13, 2016 Decided: September 16, 2016

Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frederick L. Howell, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1614 Doc: 7 Filed: 09/16/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Frederick L. Howell petitions for a writ of mandamus and 

prohibition seeking an order compelling the United States Attorney 

for the District of South Carolina to prosecute the attorney who 

represented Howell in Howell’s criminal prosecution. We conclude 

that Howell 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. 

Cumberland Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Burnwell, 816 F.3d 48, 52 (4th Cir. 

2016).

Howell has not shown the existence of an extraordinary 

circumstance, nor has he shown that he has a clear right to the 

relief he seeks. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of 

mandamus and prohibition. 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: 16-1614 Doc: 7 Filed: 09/16/2016 Pg: 2 of 2