Opinion
22-1934
12-22-2022
In re: JANE DOE, Petitioner.
Jane Doe, Petitioner Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: December 20, 2022
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:22-cv-00947-PTG-JFA)
Jane Doe, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Jane Doe petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to grant her in forma pauperis status, leave to proceed under a pseudonym and under seal, leave to file electronically, leave to exceed page number requirements, and a temporary restraining order. We conclude that Doe is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); In re Murphy-Brown, LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and "has no other adequate means to attain the relief [she] desires." Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (cleaned up).
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 Doe is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, 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