In Re: Arthur Jone


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-1374 Doc: 7 Filed: 05/23/2016 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1374 In re: ARTHUR F. JONES, JR., a/k/a Arthur Palmer, a/k/a June, a/k/a Junior, Petitioner.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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?