In re: Andrew Jackson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999725547-2], granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999722630-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999699743-2] Originating case number: 3:00-cr-00006-GMG-JES-1,3:00-cr-00046-JPB-RWT-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999802700]. Mailed to: Jackson. [15-2412]

Appeal: 15-2412

Doc: 13

Filed: 04/25/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2412

In re: ANDREW CHARLES JACKSON, a/k/a William Benbow, a/k/a
Ricky Antonio Bady, a/k/a Sway,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(3:00-cr-00006-GMG-JES-1; 3:00-cr-00046-JPB-RWT-1)

Submitted:

April 21, 2016

Decided:

April 25, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew Charles Jackson, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2412

Doc: 13

Filed: 04/25/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Andrew Charles Jackson petitions for a writ of mandamus
seeking

an

order

denying

Jackson’s

transcripts.

We

declaring
motion

void

for

conclude

the

district

production

that

Jackson

of
is

court’s

jury
not

order

voir

dire

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 Jackson 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.
dispense

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