Case Name: IN RE: Gerald PORTER, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-03
Citations: 669 F. App'x 118
Docket Number: No. 16-1366
Parties: IN RE: Gerald PORTER, Petitioner.
Judges: Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 118–118

Head Matter:
IN RE: Gerald PORTER, Petitioner.
No. 16-1366
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: September 29, 2016
Decided: October 3, 2016
Gerald Porter, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gerald Porter petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order from this court directing the district court to grant relief on Porter's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We conclude that Porter 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). Finally, 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 Porter is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in for-ma 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