Court Opinion

ID: 9374421
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 21:00:46.015651+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:47.275877
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2193      Doc: 15         Filed: 02/21/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-2193

        In re: DALTON ALONZO DIXON,

                            Petitioner.

                         On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:21-ct-03291-D)

        Submitted: February 16, 2023                                 Decided: February 21, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Dalton Alonzo Dixon, Petitioner Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2193      Doc: 15         Filed: 02/21/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Dalton Alonzo Dixon petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling

        this court, as well as various state officials, to address and respond to Dalton’s previously

        filed self-styled “Notice of Renunciation” of his statutory United States citizenship. In his

        supplemental petition, Dixon also seeks an order directing that the Commonwealth of

        Virginia be removed as a defendant and asserts that the State of North Carolina is

        responsible for subjecting Dixon to a foreign jurisdiction.

               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).

               Upon review of the subject petition and supplement, we conclude that the relief

        sought by Dixon is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition

        for writ of mandamus. We also deny Dixon’s motion to intervene. 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