In re: Eric Richardson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion dispositions in opinion--denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [1000063089-2]; granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [1000063091-2]. Originating case numbers: 1:09-cr-00288-JKB-28, 1:14-cv-02542-JKB. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000127862]. Mailed to: Petitioner. [17-1489]

Appeal: 17-1489

Doc: 10

Filed: 07/31/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1489

In re: ERIC M. RICHARDSON, a/k/a Father,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:09-cr-00288-JKB-28; 1:14-cv-02542-JKB)

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: July 31, 2017

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Richardson, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-1489

Doc: 10

Filed: 07/31/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Eric Richardson petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court
has unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. He seeks an order
from this court directing the district court to act. However, we find the present record
does not reveal undue delay in the district court. Richardson also seeks an order granting
relief on his claim that he does not qualify as a career offender and directing the district
court to recuse itself. We conclude that Richardson 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 and no other adequate
remedy is available. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.
1988). Because Richardson can pursue his career offender claim through his § 2241
petition and subsequent 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, the relief he seeks is not
available by way of mandamus. Nor has Richardson established a clear right to the
district court’s recusal.
Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the
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

2