In re: Alecia Farley

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999600525-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999600527-2] Originating case number: 3:14-cv-00568-JRS Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999625962]. Mailed to: Alecia Y. Farley, Marvin A. Farley. [15-1635]

Appeal: 15-1635

Doc: 5

Filed: 07/23/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1635

In re: ALECIA Y. FARLEY; MARVIN A. FARLEY,
Petitioners.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(3:14-cv-00568-JRS)

Submitted:

July 21, 2015

Decided:

July 23, 2015

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alecia Y. Farley; Marvin A. Farley, Petitioners Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1635

Doc: 5

Filed: 07/23/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Alecia Y. Farley and Marvin A. Farley petition for a writ of
mandamus seeking an order vacating various orders of the district
court in their civil case.

We conclude that the Farleys are 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 the Farleys are not available by way of
mandamus. *

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in

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

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

*

We note that the Farleys have filed a timely notice of
appeal of the district court’s final order.
2