Case Name: In re: Carol L. Gray PIZZUTO, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-08-20
Citations: 475 F. App'x 468
Docket Number: No. 12-1771
Parties: In re: Carol L. Gray PIZZUTO, Petitioner.
Judges: Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 475
Pages: 468–469

Head Matter:
In re: Carol L. Gray PIZZUTO, Petitioner.
No. 12-1771.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 16, 2012.
Decided: Aug. 20, 2012.
Carol L. Pizzuto, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carol L. Pizzuto petitions for a writ of mandamus in which she seeks to compel the investigation and prosecution of several individuals. We conclude that Pizzuto is not entitled to the relief she seeks.
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).
The relief sought by Pizzuto is not available by way of mandamus. See Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607, 105 S.Ct. 1524, 84 L.Ed.2d 547 (1985) ("[T] he Government retains broad discretion as to whom to prosecute."); Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619, 93 S.Ct. 1146, 35 L.Ed.2d 536 (1973) ("[A] private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another."). 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.