In re: Angelo Galloway

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999543542-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999543541-2] Originating case number: 2:10-cr-00096-MSD-TEM-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999587572]. Mailed to: Galloway. [15-1253]

Appeal: 15-1253

Doc: 11

Filed: 05/21/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1253

In re:

ANGELO GALLOWAY, a/k/a Gelo,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(2:10-cr-00096-MSD-TEM-2)

Submitted:

May 19, 2015

Decided: May 21, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Angelo Galloway, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1253

Doc: 11

Filed: 05/21/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Angelo Galloway petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an
order directing a district judge to docket his pro se ethics
grievance

against

a

federal

prosecutor.

We

conclude

that

Galloway 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).
The

district

court’s

docket

reveals

that

Galloway’s

grievance was received by the district court and referred for
investigation.

To the extent Galloway seeks additional relief

by way of his mandamus petition, he fails to demonstrate a clear
right to such relief.

Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, but we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

2