Filed: Mar. 08, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2080 In Re: RICHARD DEBLOIS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:12-cv-00100-CCB) Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: March 8, 2016 Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard DeBlois, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Richard DeBlois petitions for a writ of
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2080 In Re: RICHARD DEBLOIS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:12-cv-00100-CCB) Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: March 8, 2016 Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard DeBlois, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Richard DeBlois petitions for a writ of m..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2080
In Re: RICHARD DEBLOIS,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(1:12-cv-00100-CCB)
Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: March 8, 2016
Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard DeBlois, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Richard DeBlois petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an
order requiring the district court to reopen his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (2012) petition and granting a certificate of
appealability. We conclude that DeBlois is not entitled to
mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only
in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court,
426
U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui,
333 F.3d 509,
516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available
only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought.
In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n,
860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.
1988). 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 sought by DeBlois is not available by way of
mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, we deny his petition for writ of mandamus and
his amended 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