In re: Celeste Broughton

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [1000076663-2], granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [1000076201-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [1000075790-2] Originating case number: 5:16-cv-00302-BO Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000105133].. [17-1593]

Appeal: 17-1593

Doc: 10

Filed: 06/22/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1593

In re: CELESTE G. BROUGHTON, a/k/a Celeste Gold Broughton,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
(No. 5:16-cv-00302-BO)

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Celeste G. Broughton, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Decided: June 22, 2017

Appeal: 17-1593

Doc: 10

Filed: 06/22/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Celeste G. Broughton petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order
compelling the district court to cancel a scheduled hearing and hold a jury trial, and
compelling recusal of the district court judge. We conclude that Broughton 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).

Here, the district court granted

Broughton’s motion to cancel the hearing and transferred the case to a different district
court judge. Therefore, Broughton’s request for a writ of mandamus regarding those
issues is moot.
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