In re: Charles Gillenwater

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999304722-2]; granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999304707-2] Originating case number: 5:14-ct-03014-H Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999340786]. Mailed to: Charles Gillenwater. [14-1101]

Appeal: 14-1101

Doc: 7

Filed: 04/22/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1101

In Re: CHARLES GILLENWATER,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(5:14-ct-03014-H)

Submitted:

April 17, 2014

Decided:

April 22, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Gillenwater, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1101

Doc: 7

Filed: 04/22/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Charles Gillenwater petitions for an emergency writ of
mandamus seeking an order ensuring, inter alia, a timely trial
and counsel of his choice.

We conclude that Gillenwater is not

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

Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court,

426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d
509,

516-17

(4th

Cir.

2003).

Further,

mandamus

relief

is

available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the
relief sought.
135,

138

(4th

In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d
Cir.

1988).

substitute for appeal. *

Mandamus

may

not

be

used

as

a

In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d

351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
The relief sought by Gillenwater is not available by
way

of

mandamus.

Accordingly,

although

we

grant

leave

to

proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of
mandamus.
legal

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions

are

adequately

*

presented

in

the

materials

The district court recently dismissed as frivolous the
underlying complaint.

2

Appeal: 14-1101

before

Doc: 7

this

Filed: 04/22/2014

court

and

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
PETITION DENIED

3