In Re: Darryl Gaston

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999511648-2], denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999518280-2]; granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999518282-2] Originating case number: 1:06-cr-00310-JAB-1,1:14-cv-01051-JAB-JLW,1:11-cv-00728-JAB-JLW. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999589606]. Mailed to: D. Gaston. [15-1060]

Appeal: 15-1060

Doc: 12

Filed: 05/26/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1060

In re:

DARRYL DEVON GASTON,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(1:06-cr-00310-JAB-1; 1:14-cv-01051-JAB-JLW;
1:11-cv-00728-JAB-JLW)

Submitted:

May 21, 2015

Decided:

May 26, 2015

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darryl Devon Gaston, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1060

Doc: 12

Filed: 05/26/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Darryl

Devon

Gaston

petitions

for

a

writ

of

mandamus

seeking an order directing the district court to not construe
his “motion to amend and expand the record” as a successive 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.

We conclude that Gaston 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.
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 sought by Gaston is not available by way of
mandamus.

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, we deny Gaston’s petition for writ of mandamus
and his supplemental petition.

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