In re: Frederick Howell

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for extraordinary writ under FRAP 21 [999837942-2] Originating case number: Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999930778].. [16-1614]

Appeal: 16-1614

Doc: 7

Filed: 09/16/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1614

In Re:

FREDERICK L. HOWELL,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition.

Submitted:

September 13, 2016

Decided: September 16, 2016

Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frederick L. Howell, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1614

Doc: 7

Filed: 09/16/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Frederick L. Howell petitions for a writ of mandamus and
prohibition seeking an order compelling the United States Attorney
for the District of South Carolina to prosecute the attorney who
represented Howell in Howell’s criminal prosecution.

We conclude

that Howell 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.
Cumberland Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Burnwell, 816 F.3d 48, 52 (4th Cir.
2016).
Howell

has

not

shown

the

existence

of

an

extraordinary

circumstance, nor has he shown that he has a clear right to the
relief he seeks.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of

mandamus and prohibition.

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

2