In re: Daniel Willi

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [1000031587-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [1000020569-2]. Originating case number: 4:16-mc-00001-H, 4:16-mc-00002-H. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000088001]. Mailed to: Daniel Willis. [17-1185]

Appeal: 17-1185

Doc: 7

Filed: 05/25/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1185

In re: DANIEL JOHNSON WILLIS,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (4:16-mc-00001-H; 4:16-mc-00002-H)

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel Johnson Willis, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Decided: May 25, 2017

Appeal: 17-1185

Doc: 7

Filed: 05/25/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Daniel Johnson Willis petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing
the district court to file his civil complaints. 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).
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 sought by Willis is not available by
way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
we deny the petition and corrected petition for writ of mandamus. 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

*

The court has already reviewed, in 10-1740, the denial of leave to file a
complaint in 4:10-mc-1. The motion for leave to file a complaint in 4:17-mc-2-H is still
pending in the district court.

2