Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-02389/USCOURTS-ca4-14-02389-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James C. Platts
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2389

In re: JAMES C. PLATTS,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:14-cv-00072-FPS-JES)

Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 18, 2015

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James C. Platts, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-2389 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/18/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

James C. Platts petitions for a writ of mandamus 

seeking an order from this court compelling the district court 

to consider certain evidence when deciding his pending 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241 (2012) petition. 

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used 

only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States 

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), and may not be used as 

a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 

351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). An order compelling the district 

court to consider certain evidence when deciding Platts’ § 2241 

petition is not available by way of mandamus.

Platts also alleges that the district court has unduly 

delayed in ruling on his § 2241 petition. He seeks an order 

from this court directing the district court to act. We find 

the present record does not reveal undue delay in the district 

court. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis

and deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

Appeal: 14-2389 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/18/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

Appeal: 14-2389 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/18/2015 Pg: 3 of 3