In re: Mark Ward

Filing 920090313


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2190 In Re: MARK A. WARD, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:08-cv-00054-WO-PTS) Submitted: February 12, 2009 Decided: March 13, 2009 Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark A. Ward, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mark A. Ward petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order setting aside the district court's judgment and compelling the clerk of that court to follow internal office protocol in assigning cases to district judges. that Ward is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. Loan Ass'n, is 860 a F.2d drastic 135, 138 (4th and In re First Fed. Sav. & Cir. 1988). only be Further, used in We conclude mandamus remedy should extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal, In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979), which is the proper avenue for Ward to pursue setting aside the district appeal court. Regarding Ward's request that this court intervene in the clerk's assignment of cases, Ward fails to meet his burden of showing that his right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable. See Beard, 811 F.2d at 826. Ward's petition does court the judgment. judgment, In which fact, is Ward has filed pending a direct this of currently in not show that the clerk failed to comply with a clear duty in 2 making the judicial assignment in Ward's case. See In re Braxton, 258 F.3d 250, 261 (4th Cir. 2001). The relief sought by Ward is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in We forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?