Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-02126/USCOURTS-ca4-16-02126-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Beverly L. Hennager
Petitioner
Louis A. Jennings
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2126

In Re: BEVERLY L. HENNAGER; LOUIS A. JENNINGS,

Petitioners.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(1:15-cv-00149-LO-TCB)

Submitted: December 9, 2016 Decided: January 4, 2017

Before AGEE, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Beverly L. Hennager, Louis A. Jennings, Petitioners Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-2126 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/04/2017 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Beverly L. Hennager and Louis A. Jennings petition for a 

writ of mandamus, asking that this court quash an order of the 

district court and direct the district court judge to recuse 

himself from the underlying dissolution action. Petitioners 

have also filed a motion to expedite. We deny mandamus relief.

Mandamus is a drastic remedy to 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). In fact, mandamus relief is available only 

when there are no other means by which the relief sought could 

be granted, see Moussaoui, 333 F.3d at 517, and the party has 

established they have a clear and indisputable right to the 

relief sought, see In re Braxton, 258 F.3d 250, 261 (4th Cir. 

2001). 

It is well established that mandamus may not be used as a 

substitute for appeal. Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 97 

(1967); In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 

2007); see Moussaoui, 333 F.3d at 517. Although “a district 

judge’s refusal to disqualify himself can be reviewed in this 

circuit by way of a petition for a writ of mandamus[,]” a writ 

of mandamus will not issue “when all that is shown is that the 

district court abused its discretion when making the challenged 

ruling.” In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826-27 (4th Cir. 1987). 

Appeal: 16-2126 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/04/2017 Pg: 2 of 3
3

We have reviewed Petitioners’ filings and conclude that 

Petitioners have not established a clear and indisputable right 

to the relief sought. Accordingly, we deny mandamus relief. We 

deny as moot Petitioners’ motion to expedite. 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: 16-2126 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/04/2017 Pg: 3 of 3