In re: Keith Davi
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. . Mailed to: Keith Davis. [17-1726, 17-1892]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
In re: KEITH A. DAVIS,
In re: KEITH A. DAVIS,
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Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
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.
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?