Case Name: In re David CONLEY, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-10-23
Citations: 585 F. App'x 56
Docket Number: No. 14-1831
Parties: In re David CONLEY, Petitioner.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 585
Pages: 56–57

Head Matter:
In re David CONLEY, Petitioner.
No. 14-1831.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 21, 2014.
Decided: Oct. 23, 2014.
David Conley, Petitioner pro se.
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Conley petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking orders prohibiting the district court from denying his post-judgment motion to amend his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint and directing the district court to certify a class and grant relief on his underlying complaint. We conclude that Conley is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should 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 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 Conley is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, 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.