Court Opinion

ID: 9394015
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-11 21:01:06.639283+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:56.785736
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1195      Doc: 14         Filed: 05/10/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1195

        In re: MICHAEL ALONZA RUFUS, Individual and non-other person - see
        Dictionary Act,

                            Petitioner.

        On Petitions for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern
        District of Virginia, at Alexandria. (1:22-cv-00977-PTG-IDD)

        Submitted: April 6, 2023                                          Decided: May 10, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

        Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Michael Alonza Rufus, Petitioner Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1195         Doc: 14     Filed: 05/10/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Michael Alonza Rufus petitions for a writ of mandamus, asking this court to order

        the district court to issue a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. “[M]andamus is

        a drastic remedy that must be reserved for extraordinary situations.” In re Murphy-Brown,

        LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Courts

        provide mandamus relief only when (1) petitioner ‘ha[s] no other adequate means to attain

        the relief [he] desires’; (2) petitioner has shown a ‘clear and indisputable’ right to the

        requested relief; and (3) the court deems the writ ‘appropriate under the circumstances.’”

        Id. (quoting Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004)). The writ of

        mandamus is not a substitute for appeal after final judgment. Will v. United States, 389

        U.S. 90, 97 (1967); In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).

              We have reviewed the mandamus petition and amended mandamus petition, and we

        conclude that Rufus fails to show that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we

        deny the petitions. 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.

                                                                             PETITIONS DENIED

                                                    2