In Re: Eric Flore

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999063507-2]; denying Motion to exceed length limitations [999073228-2], denying Motion to exceed length limitations [999063505-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999063498-2]. Originating case number: N/A Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999092566]. Mailed to: Eric Flores. [13-1331]

Appeal: 13-1331

Doc: 8

Filed: 04/23/2013

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1331

In re: ERIC FLORES,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Submitted:

April 18, 2013

Decided:

April 23, 2013

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Flores, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-1331

Doc: 8

Filed: 04/23/2013

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Eric Flores petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging
that the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement of the U.S.
Department
appeal.

of

Education

has

unduly

delayed

in

ruling

on

his

He seeks an order from this court directing the Deputy

Assistant Secretary to impose sanctions against the University
of Texas at El Paso for alleged violations of Titles VI and VII
of the Civil Rights Act.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used
only
Dist.

in

extraordinary

Court,

Moussaoui,
mandamus

426

333

relief

U.S.

F.3d
is

circumstances.

509,

394,

402

516-17

available

only

clear right to the relief sought.

Kerr

(1976);
(4th
when

Cir.
the

v.

United

United
2003).

States

States

v.

Further,

petitioner

has

a

In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan

Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).
The relief sought by Flores is not available by way of
mandamus.

Accordingly,

we

deny

leave

to

proceed

in

forma

pauperis, deny Flores’ motions to exceed length limitations, and
deny the 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