Court Opinion

ID: 9381473
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-22 21:01:21.693484+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:32.701575
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1091      Doc: 9          Filed: 03/21/2023   Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-1091

        In re: DAVID HILL, a/k/a John Doe,

                             Petitioner.

                            On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus. (A00-084)

        Submitted: March 16, 2023                                         Decided: March 21, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        David Hill, Petitioner Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1091      Doc: 9         Filed: 03/21/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               David Hill petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district

        court clerk to enter on the docket grand jury proceedings that were held in 2000, which led

        to a subpoena for samples of Hill’s saliva and hair. 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 (cleaned up).

               The relief sought by Hill is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, 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

                                                     2