In re: Thomas Cross, Jr.
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999651267-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999640346-2]. Originating case number: 5:15-hc-02144-FL. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999719992]. Mailed to: Thomas Cross, Jr.. [15-1917]
Appeal: 15-1917
Doc: 6
Filed: 12/17/2015
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1917
In re: THOMAS FRANKLIN CROSS, JR.,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(5:15-hc-02144-FL)
Submitted:
December 15, 2015
Before GREGORY
Circuit Judge.
and
FLOYD,
Decided:
Circuit
Judges,
December 17, 2015
and
DAVIS,
Senior
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas Franklin Cross, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-1917
Doc: 6
Filed: 12/17/2015
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Thomas
Franklin
Cross,
Jr.,
petitions
for
a
writ
of
mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to order
a state court judge to hold an evidentiary hearing.
We conclude
that Cross 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
relief
mandamus.
sought
by
Cross
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
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?