Court Opinion

ID: 9930442
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-06 21:01:24.325465+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:17:52.477269
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2281      Doc: 11         Filed: 02/05/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-2281

        In re: BRANDON MICHAEL PICKENS,

                            Petitioner.

        On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Western
        District of North Carolina, at Asheville. (1:21-cv-00030-MR)

        Submitted: January 30, 2024                                       Decided: February 5, 2024

        Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Brandon Michael Pickens, Petitioner Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2281      Doc: 11        Filed: 02/05/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Brandon Michael Pickens, a North Carolina inmate, petitions for a writ of

        mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to allow Pickens to amend his

        complaint in the underlying 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action and to appoint counsel to represent

        Pickens. We conclude that Pickens 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).

              By order entered on November 8, 2023, the district court denied Pickens’ most

        recent motions to amend his complaint and for the appointment of counsel. See Pickens v.

        Hendricks, No. 1:21-cv-00030-MR (W.D.N.C., PACER No. 190). Because 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 Pickens seeks is not available by way of mandamus.

        Accordingly, we deny the petition for a 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