In re: Keith Davi

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [1000100793-2] in 17-1726, denying supplemental Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [1000151143-2], denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [1000129854-2] in 17-1892; granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [1000100795-2] in 17-1726; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [1000100797-2] in 17-1726. Originating case number: 3:11-cr-00512-MBS-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000187845]. Mailed to: Keith Davis. [17-1726, 17-1892]

Download PDF

Appeal: 17-1726 Doc: 16 Filed: 11/07/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1726 In re: KEITH A. DAVIS, Petitioner. No. 17-1892 In re: KEITH A. DAVIS, Petitioner. On Petitions for Writ of Mandamus. (3:11-cr-00512-MBS-1) Submitted: October 24, 2017 Decided: November 7, 2017 Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keith A. Davis, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 17-1726 Doc: 16 Filed: 11/07/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated cases, Keith A. Davis petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to vacate its order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. We conclude that Davis is not entitled to the relief requested. 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). In this case, because 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 Davis seeks is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petitions and supplemental petition for writ of mandamus. We deny Davis’ motion to appoint counsel. 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. PETITIONS DENIED 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?