In re: Dominique Adam

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999724547-2]; granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999724549-2] Originating case number: 7:10-cv-00383-SGW-mfu Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999762041].. [15-2573]

Appeal: 15-2573

Doc: 5

Filed: 02/25/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2573

In Re:

DOMINIQUE HERMAN ADAMS,
Petitioner,

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(7:10-cv-00383-SGW-mfu)

Submitted:

February 23, 2016

Decided:

February 25, 2016

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dominique Herman Adams, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2573

Doc: 5

Filed: 02/25/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Dominique Herman Adams petitions for a writ of mandamus or
a writ of prohibition seeking an order vacating or modifying the
district court’s October 9, 2015, order imposing a prefiling
injunction.

We conclude that Adams is not entitled to mandamus

relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy that should be used
only in extraordinary circumstances.
426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976).

Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court,

Further, mandamus relief is available

only when the petitioner has “no other adequate means to attain
the relief he desires” and when he demonstrates his right to
that

relief

is

“clear

and

indisputable.”

United

States

v.

Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 517 (4th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation
marks omitted).

Likewise, “a writ of prohibition is a drastic

and extraordinary remedy which should be granted only when the
petitioner has shown his right to the writ to be clear and
indisputable and that the actions of the court were a clear
abuse of discretion.”
Cir.

1983).

Neither

In re Vargas, 723 F.2d 1461, 1468 (10th
a

writ

of

mandamus

nor

a

writ

prohibition may be used as a substitute for appeal.
Lockheed

Martin

Corp.,

503

F.3d

351,

353

(4th

Cir.

of

In re
2007)

(mandamus); Vargas, 723 F.2d at 1468 (prohibition).
The relief Adams seeks is not available by way of mandamus
or prohibition.

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed
2

Appeal: 15-2573

Doc: 5

Filed: 02/25/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

in forma pauperis, we deny the petition.

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

3