In Re: Daniel Willi
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to amend/correct [999980705-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999979035-2], denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999973721-2] Originating case number: 7:95-mc-00017-F Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000043437]. Mailed to: Daniel Willis. [16-2338]
Appeal: 16-2338
Doc: 9
Filed: 03/16/2017
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-2338
In re:
DANIEL JOHNSON WILLIS,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Submitted:
March 14, 2017
Before FLOYD and
Circuit Judge.
HARRIS,
Decided:
Circuit
Judges,
and
March 16, 2017
DAVIS,
Senior
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daniel Johnson Willis, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-2338
Doc: 9
Filed: 03/16/2017
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Daniel
Johnson
Willis
petitions
for
a
writ
of
mandamus
seeking an order directing the district court to rule on all of
Willis’s actions filed between 2013 and 2016.
We note that this
court and the district court have prefiling injunctions in place
related
to
civil
actions
filed
by
Petitioner
Willis.
We
conclude that Willis 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).
Willis has not demonstrated that the district court has
abused its discretion in denying leave to file Willis’s actions.
Further, Willis has routinely appealed these determinations by
the district court.
for appeal.
Mandamus may not be used as a substitute
In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th
Cir. 2007).
The relief sought by Willis is not available by way of
mandamus.
Accordingly, although we grant Willis’s motion for
leave
amend
to
his
petition,
we
deny
the
supplemental petition for writ of mandamus.
oral
argument
because
the
facts
2
and
legal
petition
and
We dispense with
contentions
are
Appeal: 16-2338
Doc: 9
adequately
Filed: 03/16/2017
presented
in
the
Pg: 3 of 3
materials
before
this
court
and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3
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?