Case Name: In re Antonio Medrano ORTIZ, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-08-01
Citations: 474 F. App'x 96
Docket Number: No. 12-1453
Parties: In re Antonio Medrano ORTIZ, Petitioner.
Judges: Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 96–97

Head Matter:
In re Antonio Medrano ORTIZ, Petitioner.
No. 12-1453.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 26, 2012.
Decided: Aug. 1, 2012.
Antonio Medrano Ortiz, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Medrano Ortiz petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order to rectify favoritism allegedly exhibited by the district court in adjudicating Ortiz's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. We conclude that Ortiz 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 Ortiz 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED.