In re: Demetrius Hill

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:08-cv-00283-JCT-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998909054]. Mailed to: Demetrius Hill. [12-1084]

Appeal: 12-1084

Doc: 18

Filed: 08/03/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1084

In re: DEMETRIUS HILL,
Petitioner.

On Petitions for Writ of Mandamus.

Submitted:

June 28, 2012

(7:08-cv-00283-JCT-RSB)

Decided:

August 3, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Demetrius Hill, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-1084

Doc: 18

Filed: 08/03/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Demetrius Hill petitions for a writ of mandamus asking
this court to award attorney’s fees to his counsel under the
Equal Access to Justice Act after a jury returned a verdict in
Hill’s

favor

in

his

action

filed

pursuant

to

Bivens

v.

Six

Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
(1971).

He has filed a second petition for a writ of mandamus

requesting this court to intervene and stop the district court
from conducting a new trial.

We conclude that Hill is not

entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used
only

in

Dist.

extraordinary

Court,

Moussaoui,
mandamus

426

333

U.S.

F.3d

relief

is

circumstances.
394,

509,

402

516-17

available

(1976);
(4th

only

clear right to the relief sought.

Kerr

when

v.

United

United

Cir.

2003).

the

States

States

v.

Further,

petitioner

has

a

In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan

Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).
Mandamus
appeal.

may

not

be

used

as

a

substitute

for

In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th

Cir. 2007).

The relief sought by Hill is not available by way

of mandamus.

Accordingly, we deny the petitions for writ of

mandamus.

further

counsel.
legal

We

deny

Hill’s

motion

for

appointment

of

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions

are

adequately
2

presented

in

the

materials

Appeal: 12-1084

before

Doc: 18

Filed: 08/03/2012

the

and

court

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.

PETITIONS DENIED

3