Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01847/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01847-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sabrina D. Davis
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1847

In re: SABRINA D. DAVIS,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

 (6:08-cv-01937-RBH)

Submitted: October 20, 2015 Decided: October 22, 2015

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sabrina D. Davis, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1847 Doc: 8 Filed: 10/22/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Sabrina D. Davis petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking 

an order vacating the district court’s order dismissing her 

civil suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.∗ We conclude 

that Davis 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 Davis 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

 ∗ We previously affirmed the district court’s order. Davis 

v. Kia Motors Am., Inc., 408 F. App’x 731 (4th Cir 2011) (No. 

09-2296).

Appeal: 15-1847 Doc: 8 Filed: 10/22/2015 Pg: 2 of 2