In Re: Arthur Jone

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999789377-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999789374-2] Originating case number: 2:99-cr-00362-DCN-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999829961]. Mailed to: Arthur Jones, Jr.. [16-1374]

Appeal: 16-1374

Doc: 7

Filed: 05/23/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1374

In re: ARTHUR F. JONES, JR., a/k/a Arthur Palmer, a/k/a
June, a/k/a Junior,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(2:99-cr-00362-DCN-1)

Submitted:

May 18, 2016

Decided:

May 23, 2016

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur F. Jones, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1374

Doc: 7

Filed: 05/23/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Arthur
seeking

an

F.

Jones,

order

Jr.,

directing

petitions
the

for

district

criminal case to state court. *

a

writ

court

to

of

mandamus

remand

his

We conclude that Jones 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

mandamus.

sought

by

Jones

is

not

available

by

way

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.
dispense

of

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
*

Jones mailed a courtesy
the district court, which then
in a new civil case. Jones v.
MBS (D.S.C., PACER No. 1). We
directed to this court.

copy of the instant petition to
proceeded to docket the petition
United States, No. 6:16-cv-01059understand Jones’ petition to be

2