In re: Keith Davi

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999730935-2]; denying Motion to vacate [999769317-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999742814-2], [999730894-2]. Originating case number: 3:11-cr-00512-MBS-1 Copies to all parties and the district court. [999801238]. Mailed to: Keith Davis. [16-1013]

Appeal: 16-1013

Doc: 13

Filed: 04/22/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1013

In re:

KEITH A. DAVIS,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(3:11-cr-00512-MBS-1)

Submitted:

April 19, 2016

Decided:

April 22, 2016

Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith A. Davis, Petitioner Pro Se. John David Rowell, Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1013

Doc: 13

Filed: 04/22/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Keith A. Davis petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an
order directing the district court to produce a more complete
appellate record concerning its denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2012) motion and grant him leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
We conclude that Davis 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).
This
appeal

Court

of

the

§ 2255 motion.
Cir. 2015).

has

already

district

considered

court’s

order

and

dismissed

denying

relief

Davis’
on

his

United States v. Davis, 607 F. App’x 320 (4th

Consequently, Davis’ claims regarding the appellate

record and his fee status before the district court are moot.
To

the

extent

Davis

attempts

to

challenge

anew

the

district

court’s denial of his § 2255 motion, relief is unavailable to
him because mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal.
In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
We

therefore

conclude

that

the

available by way of mandamus.
2

relief

Davis

seeks

is

not

Appeal: 16-1013

Doc: 13

Filed: 04/22/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus and Davis’
motion to vacate.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

3