Opinion
No. 19-1347
07-22-2019
In re: JEFFREY BRIAN COHEN, Petitioner.
Jeffrey Brian Cohen, Petitioner Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:14-cr-00310-GLR-1) Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey Brian Cohen, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey Brian Cohen petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to act on three separate grounds. We conclude that Cohen is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Cohen first requests an order directing the district court to act in response to his allegations of ethical violations by two Assistant United States Attorneys in his criminal case and related forfeiture proceedings. He also requests an order directing the district court to further explain its rulings on several motions in his pending postconviction proceedings.
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 Murphy-Brown, LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Further, mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). Our review of the petition and relevant proceedings reveals that the relief Cohen seeks is not available by way of mandamus.
Cohen further asserts that the district court has unduly delayed ruling on his motion for recusal. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to issue a ruling. Our review of the district court's docket reveals that the district court denied the motion by order entered June 19, 2019. Thus, this portion of the petition 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