Case Name: IN RE: Daniel Johnson WILLIS, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-16
Citations: 680 F. App'x 261
Docket Number: No. 16-2338
Parties: IN RE: Daniel Johnson WILLIS, Petitioner.
Judges: Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 680
Pages: 261–262

Head Matter:
IN RE: Daniel Johnson WILLIS, Petitioner.
No. 16-2338
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 14, 2017
Decided: March 16, 2017
Daniel Johnson Willis, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Johnson Willis petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directs ing the district court to rule on all of Willis's actions filed between 2013 and 2016. We note that this court and the district court have prefiling injunctions in place related to civil actions filed by Petitioner Willis. We conclude that Willis 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). Willis has not demonstrated that the district court has abused its discretion in denying leave to file Willis's actions. Further, Willis has routinely appealed these determinations by the district court. 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 Willis is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant Willis's motion for leave to amend his petition, we deny the petition and supplemental 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