Court Opinion

ID: 9390156
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 21:01:24.980332+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:31.840961
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1139      Doc: 18         Filed: 04/25/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-1139

        In re: DOMINIC ASQUITH, a/k/a Dom,

                             Petitioner.

        On Petition for Writ of Prohibition to the United States District Court for the Northern
        District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. (3:20-cr-00038-GMG-RWT-7)

        Submitted: April 20, 2023                                         Decided: April 25, 2023

        Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Dominic Asquith, Petitioner Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1139      Doc: 18         Filed: 04/25/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Dominic Asquith petitions for a writ of prohibition, asking this court to order the

        district court to release him from his pretrial detention facility and to place him on home

        confinement. We conclude that Asquith is not entitled to the relief he seeks.

               A writ of prohibition is a “drastic and extraordinary remedy which should be granted

        only when the petitioner has shown h[er] right to the writ to be clear and undisputable and

        that the actions of the court were a clear abuse of discretion.” In re Vargas, 723 F.2d 1461,

        1468 (10th Cir. 1983). A writ of prohibition may not be used as a substitute for appeal.

        Id.; see United States v. Foster, 296 F.2d 249, 251 (4th Cir. 1961). The relief sought by

        Asquith is not available by way of prohibition. Accordingly, we deny Asquith’s petition

        and all pending motions. 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