Court Opinion

ID: 9385110
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-05 21:01:08.170302+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:59.046454
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1120      Doc: 11         Filed: 04/04/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-1120

        In re: ANDREW U. D. STRAW,

                            Petitioner.

                                     On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

        Submitted: March 15, 2023                                         Decided: April 4, 2023

        Before RICHARDSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior
        Circuit Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Andrew U. D. Straw, Petitioner Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1120        Doc: 11          Filed: 04/04/2023       Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Andrew U. D. Straw petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the

        United States Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina to grant him access to file

        pleadings through the court’s electronic filing system. We conclude that Straw 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).

               The relief sought by Straw is not available by way of mandamus. Straw has not

        shown that he has a clear right to file electronically as a pro se litigant in the Eastern District

        of North Carolina. See E.D.N.C. R. 5.1(b)(1), (f) (stating that pro se litigants are not

        permitted to file electronically in the Eastern District of North Carolina). Accordingly, we

        deny the petition for 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