In re: Sabrina Davi

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999638394-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999630481-2]. Originating case number: 6:08-cv-01937-RBH. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999683825]. Mailed to: Sabrina Davis. [15-1847]

Appeal: 15-1847

Doc: 8

Filed: 10/22/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1847

In re: SABRINA D. DAVIS,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(6:08-cv-01937-RBH)

Submitted:

October 20, 2015

Decided:

October 22, 2015

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sabrina D. Davis, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1847

Doc: 8

Filed: 10/22/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Sabrina D. Davis petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking
an

order

vacating

the

district

court’s

order

dismissing

civil suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ∗

her

We conclude

that Davis 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

mandamus.

sought

by

Davis

is

not

available

by

way

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in

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

of

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

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

∗

We previously affirmed the district court’s order. Davis
v. Kia Motors Am., Inc., 408 F. App’x 731 (4th Cir 2011) (No.
09-2296).

2