Court Opinion

ID: 9889275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-07 21:00:26.228018+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:50:01.950464
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1501      Doc: 9         Filed: 10/06/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                No. 23-1501

        In re: NORMAN PAUL FELTS,

                            Petitioner.

        On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern
        District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. (5:21-hc-02111-FL)

        Submitted: September 20, 2023                                     Decided: October 6, 2023

        Before AGEE and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Normal Paul Felts, Petitioner Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1501       Doc: 9         Filed: 10/06/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Norman Paul Felts petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order from this court

        directing the district court to permit him to appeal the district court’s order finding that he

        is a sexually dangerous person and committing him to the custody of the Attorney General.

        Felts has also filed a motion to expedite the decision. We conclude that Felts is not entitled

        to mandamus relief.

               Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary

        circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); In re Murphy-Brown,

        LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Further, mandamus relief is available only when

        the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and “has no other adequate means to

        attain the relief [he] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (alteration and internal

        quotation marks omitted). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re

        Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). To the extent Felts seeks an

        order directing that he be permitted to appeal, his appeal of the district court’s order has

        been docketed in this court as United States v. Felts, No. 23-6894, so his request is moot.

        To the extent he seeks to challenge the district court’s dangerousness finding by way of

        mandamus, we deny the petition because Felts may raise these arguments in his appeal of

        the district court’s order.

               Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus and deny the motion to

        expedite. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1501         Doc: 9    Filed: 10/06/2023   Pg: 3 of 3

        adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

        decisional process.

                                                                          PETITION DENIED

                                                  3