In Re: Hieda Keeler

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion dispositions in opinion--denying Motion to enter new evidence [999607130-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999597027-2]. Originating case number: 4:15-cv-00019-AWA-TEM. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999645715]. Mailed to: Hieda Keeler. [15-1605]

Appeal: 15-1605

Doc: 11

Filed: 08/24/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1605

In re:

HIEDA A. KEELER,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(4:15-cv-00019-AWA-TEM)

Submitted:

August 20, 2015

Decided:

August 24, 2015

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hieda A. Keeler, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1605

Doc: 11

Filed: 08/24/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Hieda

Keeler

petitions

for

a

writ

of

mandamus

seeking

orders directing the district court judge and magistrate judge
to recuse themselves from Keeler’s civil cases, vacating the
district court’s previous orders denying her motions to recuse,
and vacating the district court’s orders denying her motions for
cessation of torture.

We conclude that Keeler is not entitled

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

Kerr v. United States 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).
We
showing

conclude
entitling

that
her

the

Keeler

to

relief.

has

not

made

Accordingly,

the
we

requisite
deny

the

petition for a writ of mandamus and deny Keeler’s motion to
enter new evidence as moot.

We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

2

Appeal: 15-1605

Doc: 11

Filed: 08/24/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

3