Case Name: IN RE: Nicholas James QUEEN, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-16
Citations: 670 F. App'x 185
Docket Number: No. 16-1820
Parties: IN RE: Nicholas James QUEEN, Petitioner.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 670
Pages: 185–185

Head Matter:
IN RE: Nicholas James QUEEN, Petitioner.
No. 16-1820
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: November 14, 2016
Decided: November 16, 2016
Nicholas James Queen, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nicholas James Queen petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order precluding the district court from exercising jurisdiction in a criminal matter and canceling all orders and judgments against him. We deny the petition.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States 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 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).
Queen has failed to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief. 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 material before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED