Case Name: IN RE: METAPHYZIC EL-ECTROMAGNETIC SUPREME-EL, f/k/a Antonio Edward McLean, a/k/a Metaphyzic Electromagnetic Supreme, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-23
Citations: 667 F. App'x 37
Docket Number: No. 16-1476
Parties: IN RE: METAPHYZIC EL-ECTROMAGNETIC SUPREME-EL, f/k/a Antonio Edward McLean, a/k/a Metaphyzic Electromagnetic Supreme, Petitioner.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 37–37

Head Matter:
IN RE: METAPHYZIC EL-ECTROMAGNETIC SUPREME-EL, f/k/a Antonio Edward McLean, a/k/a Metaphyzic Electromagnetic Supreme, Petitioner.
No. 16-1476
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 21, 2016
Decided: June 23, 2016
Metaphyzic El-ectromagnetic Supreme-El, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Metaphyzic El-ectromagnetic Supreme-El petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the district court to consider his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition under § 2241 and not as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. We conclude that Supreme-El 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, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (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 Supreme-El is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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