In re: James Vandivere

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for stay pending appeal [999718692-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999682541-2]; granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999690718-2] Originating case number: 5:15-hc-02017-D Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999722124]. Mailed to: James Vandivere. [15-2281]

Appeal: 15-2281

Doc: 7

Filed: 12/21/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2281

In re:

JAMES DOW VANDIVERE,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(5:15-hc-02017-D)

Submitted:

December 17, 2015

Decided:

December 21, 2015

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Dow Vandivere, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2281

Doc: 7

Filed: 12/21/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
James

Dow

Vandivere

petitions

for

a

writ

of

mandamus

seeking an order directing the district court to discharge him
from detention and require proof of jurisdiction in his civil
commitment proceeding and seeking review of an order entered in
that proceeding.

We conclude that Vandivere 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 sought by Vandivere is 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

also

We

deny

dispense

Vandivere’s
with

contentions

are

oral

motion

argument

adequately

for

stay

because

presented

in

pending
the
the

appeal.

facts

and

legal

materials

before

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

2