Case Name: IN RE: Daniel Johnson WILLIS, Petitioner. In re: Daniel Johnson Willis, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-26
Citations: 712 F. App'x 304
Docket Number: No. 17-2119, No. 17-2207
Parties: IN RE: Daniel Johnson WILLIS, Petitioner. In re: Daniel Johnson Willis, Petitioner.
Judges: • Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 712
Pages: 304–305

Head Matter:
IN RE: Daniel Johnson WILLIS, Petitioner. In re: Daniel Johnson Willis, Petitioner.
No. 17-2119, No. 17-2207
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: February 22, 2018
Decided: February 26, 2018
Daniel Johnson Willis, Petitioner Pro Se.
• Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Johnson Willis petitions for writs of mandamus seeking orders directing the district court to adjudicate civil rights actions that the court denied Willis leave to file pursuant to a prefiling injunction. 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). Fur ther, 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 Willis is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petitions and supplemental petitions 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.
PETITIONS DENIED