Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01605/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01605-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Hieda A. Keeler
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1605

In re: HIEDA A. KEELER,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

 (4:15-cv-00019-AWA-TEM)

Submitted: August 20, 2015 Decided: August 24, 2015

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hieda A. Keeler, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1605 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/24/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Hieda Keeler petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking 

orders directing the district court judge and magistrate judge 

to recuse themselves from Keeler’s civil cases, vacating the 

district court’s previous orders denying her motions to recuse, 

and vacating the district court’s orders denying her motions for 

cessation of torture. We conclude that Keeler is not entitled 

to mandamus relief.

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). Mandamus may not be used as a 

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

351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).

We conclude that the Keeler has not made the requisite 

showing entitling her to relief. Accordingly, we deny the 

petition for a writ of mandamus and deny Keeler’s motion to 

enter new evidence as moot. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

Appeal: 15-1605 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/24/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

Appeal: 15-1605 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/24/2015 Pg: 3 of 3