Court Opinion

ID: 9902075
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-22 21:00:45.838062+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:44.336686
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2065      Doc: 9         Filed: 11/21/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-2065

        In re: LINWOOD EARL DUFFIE,

                            Petitioner.

        On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern
        District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. (5:20-ct-03229-FL)

        Submitted: November 16, 2023                                Decided: November 21, 2023

        Before AGEE and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Linwood Earl Duffie, Petitioner Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2065       Doc: 9         Filed: 11/21/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Linwood Earl Duffie petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing

        the district court to allow Duffie to amend his complaint in the underlying 42 U.S.C. § 1983

        action and to liberally construe that complaint. Duffie has also filed a motion asking that

        we issue a preliminary injunction ordering the United States Attorney General “to serve

        his full civil and criminal investigation” into the North Carolina Legislature’s “conspir[acy]

        to cause [the] habitual felon class to complete unlawful enhanced sentence[s] during [the]

        . . . pandemic.” (ECF No. 7 at 1). We deny the requested relief.

               As to the mandamus petition, 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). 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). Further, 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 that Duffie seeks is not available by

        way of mandamus, and he otherwise fails to establish a clear right to the relief he seeks.

        We therefore deny the mandamus petition.

               Next, we conclude that Duffie’s motion for a preliminary injunction fails to satisfy

        the stringent requirements necessary for the requested relief. See Miranda v. Garland, 34

        F.4th 338, 358 (4th Cir. 2022) (“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish

        that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the

        absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2065         Doc: 9     Filed: 11/21/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        injunction is in the public interest.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we

        also deny the motion for a preliminary injunction.

               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

                                                    3