Court Opinion

ID: 9940290
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-13 21:00:33.950423+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:44:43.721046
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1918      Doc: 10         Filed: 02/12/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1918

        In re: DARREL R. FISHER,

                            Petitioner.

        On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern
        District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. (5:10-hc-02234-D; 5:18-hc-02099-FL; 5:18-ct-
        03165-FL; 5:18-ct-03149-FL; 5:21-ct-03186-D; 5:19-hc-02340-M)

        Submitted: October 17, 2023                                  Decided: February 12, 2024

        Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Darrel R. Fisher, Petitioner Pro Se. Genna Danelle Petre, Special Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
        for Respondent.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1918      Doc: 10          Filed: 02/12/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Darrel R. Fisher petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the

        clerk of the federal district court in the Eastern District of North Carolina to serve process

        on the defendants and respondents in several cases. We conclude that Fisher 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). At bottom, Fisher seeks relief from the district court rulings in

        these cases. However, 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 Fisher seeks 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