Case Name: In re Andrew Charles JACKSON, a/k/a William Benbow, a/k/a Ricky Antonio Bady, a/k/a Sway, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-25
Citations: 646 F. App'x 333
Docket Number: No. 15-2412
Parties: In re Andrew Charles JACKSON, a/k/a William Benbow, a/k/a Ricky Antonio Bady, a/k/a Sway, Petitioner.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 646
Pages: 333–333

Head Matter:
In re Andrew Charles JACKSON, a/k/a William Benbow, a/k/a Ricky Antonio Bady, a/k/a Sway, Petitioner.
No. 15-2412.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 21, 2016,
Decided: April 25, 2016.
Andrew Charles Jackson, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Andrew Charles Jackson petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order declaring void the district court's order denying Jackson's motion for production of jury voir dire transcripts. We conclude that Jackson 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 Jackson 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.