Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01865/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01865-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Patrick L. Booker
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1865

In Re: PATRICK L. BOOKER,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. 

(2:12-cv-01957-MGL)

Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 22, 2015

Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patrick L. Booker, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1865 Doc: 12 Filed: 12/22/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Patrick L. Booker petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking 

an order directing the district court to rule on the merits of 

each element of his First Amendment claim. We conclude that 

Booker is not entitled to the requested 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: (1) the petitioner has a “clear and indisputable”

right to the relief sought and (2) there are no other means by 

which the relief sought could be granted. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 

at 517. Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. 

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

In requesting that this Court review the analysis of the 

district court, Booker is impermissibly using the mandamus 

petition as an appeal substitute. Accordingly, 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

Appeal: 15-1865 Doc: 12 Filed: 12/22/2015 Pg: 2 of 2