Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01374/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01374-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arthur F. Jones
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1374

In re: ARTHUR F. JONES, JR., a/k/a Arthur Palmer, a/k/a 

June, a/k/a Junior,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

 (2:99-cr-00362-DCN-1)

Submitted: May 18, 2016 Decided: May 23, 2016

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur F. Jones, Petitioner Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1374 Doc: 7 Filed: 05/23/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Arthur F. Jones, Jr., petitions for a writ of mandamus 

seeking an order directing the district court to remand his 

criminal case to state court.* We conclude that Jones 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). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In 

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

The relief sought by Jones is not available by way of 

mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, we deny the petition for a 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

 * Jones mailed a courtesy copy of the instant petition to 

the district court, which then proceeded to docket the petition 

in a new civil case. Jones v. United States, No. 6:16-cv-01059-

MBS (D.S.C., PACER No. 1). We understand Jones’ petition to be 

directed to this court. 

Appeal: 16-1374 Doc: 7 Filed: 05/23/2016 Pg: 2 of 2