In Re: Joseph Witchard

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis [1000306956-2]; granting Motion for leave to file [1000306928-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus [1000306954-2], denying Motion for writ of mandamus [1000309933-2]; denying Motion for other relief [1000321061-2] Originating case number: 8:18-cv-01236-HMH. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000338339]. Mailed to: J. Witchard. [18-1630]

Appeal: 18-1630

Doc: 11

Filed: 07/30/2018

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1630

In re: JOSEPH WITCHARD,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (8:18-cv-01236-HMH)

Submitted: July 26, 2018

Decided: July 30, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Witchard, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 18-1630

Doc: 11

Filed: 07/30/2018

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Joseph Witchard petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order directing the
district court to grant his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition, vacate his criminal judgment,
and release him from custody. We conclude that Witchard 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). 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). Further, 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 sought by Witchard is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly,
although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and grant Witchard’s motion for
leave to file a mandamus petition, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We deny
Witchard’s motion to enjoin his transfer. 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