Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01018/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01018-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Chase Carmen Hunter
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1016

In Re: CHASE CARMEN HUNTER,

Petitioner.

No. 15-1018

In Re: CHASE CARMEN HUNTER,

Petitioner.

On Petitions for Writ of Mandamus.

(2:14-cv-26978; 3:14-cv-00648-REP; 

3:14-cv-000704-HEH; 3:14-cv-00705-HEH)

Submitted: April 16, 2015 Decided: April 21, 2015

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

Circuit Judge.

Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chase Carmen Hunter, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1018 Doc: 20 Filed: 04/21/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Chase Hunter petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an 

order directing all of the district courts in this Circuit, 

except for the District of South Carolina, to grant her access 

to their electronic filing systems. We conclude that Hunter 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).

The relief sought by Hunter is not available by way of 

mandamus. She cites neither statutory law nor judicial 

precedent demonstrating a clear right to file electronically. 

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, we deny her mandamus petitions, deny her motion to 

voluntarily dismiss, and deny her motions for extension of time

as moot. 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.

PETITIONS DENIED

Appeal: 15-1018 Doc: 20 Filed: 04/21/2015 Pg: 2 of 2