In Re: Tara Singhal


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999900279-2]. Originating case number: 1:12-cv-00708-CMH-JFA. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999991722]. Mailed to: Tara Singhal. [16-1818]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-1818 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/21/2016 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1818 In Re: TARA CHAND SINGHAL, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:12-cv-00708-CMH-JFA) Submitted: December 6, 2016 Decided: December 21, 2016 Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tara Chand Singhal, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-1818 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/21/2016 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Tara Chand Singhal filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, seeking: (1) an order voiding the district court’s order granting the Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint in this action; and (2) transfer of the action to a different district court judge. We deny the petition. Mandamus is a drastic remedy that should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. 394, 402 516-17 (1976); (4th United Cir. 2003). Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. States Relief v. is Moussaoui, available 333 F.3d only when 509, the petitioner has demonstrated 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). Because Singhal has not made the requisite showing, we deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 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?