Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01013/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01013-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Keith A. Davis
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1013

In re: KEITH A. DAVIS,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. 

(3:11-cr-00512-MBS-1)

Submitted: April 19, 2016 Decided: April 22, 2016

Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith A. Davis, Petitioner Pro Se. John David Rowell, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1013 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/22/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Keith A. Davis petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an 

order directing the district court to produce a more complete 

appellate record concerning its denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

(2012) motion and grant him leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

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).

This Court has already considered and dismissed Davis’ 

appeal of the district court’s order denying relief on his 

§ 2255 motion. United States v. Davis, 607 F. App’x 320 (4th 

Cir. 2015). Consequently, Davis’ claims regarding the appellate 

record and his fee status before the district court are moot. 

To the extent Davis attempts to challenge anew the district 

court’s denial of his § 2255 motion, relief is unavailable to 

him because mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. 

In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). 

We therefore conclude that the relief Davis seeks is not 

available by way of mandamus.

Appeal: 16-1013 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/22/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus and Davis’ 

motion to vacate. 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: 16-1013 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/22/2016 Pg: 3 of 3