In re: Franklin Smith

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [1000074896-2] Originating case number: Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000144766]. Mailed to: F Smith. [17-1583]

Appeal: 17-1583

Doc: 12

Filed: 08/28/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1583

In re: FRANKLIN C. SMITH,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Submitted: August 24, 2017

Decided: August 28, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Franklin C. Smith, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-1583

Doc: 12

Filed: 08/28/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Franklin C. Smith petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking to compel the
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration to reveal the name of an employee
who allegedly discriminated against Smith and terminated Smith’s disability benefits
because Smith is a white male. 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).
Smith presents no evidence that “there are no other adequate means to attain the
relief he desires,” such as a motion for discovery, to compel, or for issuance of a
subpoena. In re Braxton, 258 F.3d 250, 261 (4th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks
omitted) (setting forth standard for granting writ of mandamus). Thus, the relief sought
by Smith is not available by way of mandamus, and we deny his mandamus petition.
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