In re: Benito H. Hernandez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999380353-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999380352-2], denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999394919-2]. Originating case number: 1:10-cr-00023-MR-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999427127]. Mailed to: B. Hernandez. [14-1617]

Appeal: 14-1617

Doc: 6

Filed: 09/02/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1617

In re: BENITO HERNANDEZ HERNANDEZ,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Submitted:

August 28, 2014

(1:10-cr-00023-MR-1)

Decided:

September 2, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Benito Hernandez Hernandez, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1617

Doc: 6

Filed: 09/02/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Benito H. Hernandez has filed a petition for a writ of
mandamus and a supplemental petition seeking an order from this
court to set aside the district court’s May 23, 2014, order
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2102) motion.

We conclude that

Hernandez is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used
only

in

Dist.

extraordinary

Court,

Moussaoui,

426

333

mandamus relief

circumstances.

U.S.

F.3d
is

394,

509,

402

516-17

available

(1976);
(4th

only

clear right to the relief sought.

Kerr

Cir.

when

the

v.

United

United

States

States

2003).

v.

Further,

petitioner

has

a

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).
The

relief

mandamus.

sought

by

Hernandez

is

not

available

by

way

of

Accordingly, we deny him leave to proceed in forma

pauperis

and

dispense

with

contentions

deny

are

his

oral

petitions

argument

adequately

for

writ

because

presented

in

the
the

of

mandamus.

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

2