In re: Steven Glenn:Johnson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [998566707-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [998562462-2], denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [998552343-2] Originating case number: 4:10-cv-00151-BR Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998595437]. Mailed to: Steven Glenn-Johnson. [11-1247]

Appeal: 11-1247

Document: 8

Date Filed: 05/23/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1247

In re: STEVEN-GLENN:JOHNSON,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Submitted:

(4:10-cv-00151-BR)

May 19, 2011

Before TRAXLER,
Judges.

Chief

Decided:

Judge,

and

AGEE

and

May 23, 2011

KEENAN,

Circuit

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven-Glenn:Johnson, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-1247

Document: 8

Date Filed: 05/23/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Steven-Glenn:Johnson (“Johnson”) has filed a petition
for a writ of mandamus in which he requests that this court
order the district court to calendar a hearing on his request
for

a

preliminary

injunction

and

rule

on

that

request.

He

further seeks an order directing the district court to order the
United States Marshal’s Service to serve Defendants in Johnson’s
civil action with both a copy of the complaint he filed in the
district court and a notice of the hearing on his request for a
preliminary injunction.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used
only

in

Dist.

extraordinary

Court,

Moussaoui,

426

333

circumstances.

U.S.

F.3d

394,

509,

402

516-17

Kerr

(1976);
(4th

Cir.

v.

United

United

States

States

2003).

v.

Johnson

carries the heavy burden of establishing that he has no other
adequate

means

to

attain

the

relief

sought

and

that

entitlement to such relief is clear and indisputable.

his

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).
We
relates

to

deny
his

Johnson’s

request

that

mandamus
the

petition

district

insofar

court

as

calendar

it
a

hearing on his request for a preliminary injunction and order
the Marshal’s Service to serve Defendants in Johnson’s action
2

Appeal: 11-1247

Document: 8

Date Filed: 05/23/2011

Page: 3 of 3

with a copy of his complaint and a notice of the hearing.

This

relief is not available by way of mandamus.
We deny Johnson’s mandamus petition as moot insofar as
it relates to his request that the district court rule on his
request for a preliminary injunction.
denied

Johnson’s

motion

seeking

a

The district court has
preliminary

injunction.

Glenn:Johnson v. Thomas, No. 4:10-cv-00151-BR (E.D.N.C. April 8,
2011).
Accordingly,

although

we

grant

leave

to

proceed

forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

in
We

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

3