Court Opinion

ID: 9375235
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-25 21:00:43.754541+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:57.060675
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1039      Doc: 11         Filed: 02/24/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1039

        In re: DEANDRE JOHNSON,

                            Petitioner.

                     On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:21-cv-00511-RAJ-LRL)

        Submitted: February 21, 2023                                 Decided: February 24, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Deandre Johnson, Petitioner Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1039      Doc: 11         Filed: 02/24/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Deandre Johnson petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order directing the

        district court to grant relief on his pending 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We conclude that

        Johnson 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 no other adequate means to attain the relief [he] desires” and

        demonstrates “a clear and indisputable right” to that relief. Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at

        795 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted).

               The relief sought by Johnson 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