In re: Alan Pitt

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [998558534-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [998550813-2] Originating case number: 5:10-cv-00135-FL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998595466]. Mailed to: Alan Pitts and Seneca Nicholson. [11-1242]

Appeal: 11-1242

Document: 6

Date Filed: 05/23/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1242

In re: ALAN PITTS, d/b/a Northern
Employment; SENECA NICHOLSON, d/b/a
Supported Employment,

Carolina Supported
Northern Carolina

Petitioners.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Submitted:

(5:10-cv-00135-FL)

May 19, 2011

Before TRAXLER,
Judges.

Chief

Decided:

Judge,

and

AGEE

and

May 23, 2011

KEENAN,

Circuit

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alan Pitts, Seneca Nicholson, Petitioners Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-1242

Document: 6

Date Filed: 05/23/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Alan Pitts and Seneca Nicholson petition for a writ of
mandamus seeking the issuance of an “Order to Show Cause As to
Why The Writ Should Not Issue to the Respondents” as well as an
order

staying

the

proceedings

in

their

civil

action

in

the

district court, see N.C. Supported Emp’t v. N.C. Dep’t of Health
&

Human

Servs.,

No.

5:10-cv-00135-FL

(E.D.N.C.),

and

appeal

No. 10-2426 in this court, pending the issuance of the record of
the district court’s proceedings.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used
only
Dist.

in

extraordinary

Court,

Moussaoui,

333

426

circumstances.

U.S.

F.3d

394,

509,

402

516-17

Kerr

(1976);
(4th

Cir.

v.

United

United
2003).

States

States

v.

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).

Pitts and Nicholson seek to challenge

the decisions of the district court and the magistrate judge in
the action that is before this court in appeal No. 10-2426.
Because mandamus is not a substitute for appeal, and because
Pitts and Nicholson may challenge the district court’s and the
magistrate judge’s rulings on appeal, the request for mandamus
relief must fail.
2

Appeal: 11-1242

Document: 6

Date Filed: 05/23/2011

Additionally,

Pitts’

and

Page: 3 of 3

Nicholson’s

request

for

a

stay has been mooted by the issuance of the electronic record of
the district court’s proceedings, which has been forwarded to
this

court

for

Accordingly,

its

although

consideration
we

grant

in

leave

appeal
to

No. 10-2426.

proceed

pauperis, we deny Pitts’ and Nicholson’s petition.

in

forma

We 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