David Hill v. William Traxler, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:15-cv-00137-RAJ-TEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999725039]. Mailed to: David Hill. [15-7193]

Appeal: 15-7193

Doc: 14

Filed: 12/28/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7193

DAVID HILL,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM B. TRAXLER, JR., Chief Judge for the Fourth Circuit
Court of Appeals; PAUL V. NIEMEYER, Circuit Court Judge;
JAMES MICHAEL, Circuit Court Judge; WIDENER, Circuit Court
Judge; CLAUDE M. HILTON, District Court Judge assigned to
Alexandria; T. S. ELLIS, III, District Court Judge assigned
to Alexandria,
Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:15-cv-00137-RAJ-TEM)

Submitted:

December 15, 2015

Decided:

December 28, 2015

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Hill, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7193

Doc: 14

Filed: 12/28/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
David Hill appeals the district court’s order dismissing
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2012) his complaint filed pursuant
to

Bivens

v.

Six

Unknown

Named

Agents

of

Fed.

Bureau

of

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the court’s subsequent order
denying Hill’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend
that

judgment.

We

reversible error.

have

reviewed

the

record

and

find

no

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court.

See Hill v. Traxler, No. 2:15-cv-00137-

RAJ-TEM (E.D. Va. May 11, 2015 & July 15, 2015).
In conjunction with this appeal, Hill has filed a petition
for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order directing the district
court to act on Hill’s application to proceed in forma pauperis
(IFP).

Given its dismissal of the action, the district court

declined to act on the IFP application, instead declaring it
moot.
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).

Hill

does

not

identify

any

extraordinary

reason

to

compel the district court to act on the IFP application, and we
2

Appeal: 15-7193

Doc: 14

Filed: 12/28/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

discern no basis in the record for granting Hill the relief he
seeks.
dispense

Accordingly, we deny the pending mandamus petition.
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.

AFFIRMED

3