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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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