From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Flores

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Apr 23, 2013
519 F. App'x 150 (4th Cir. 2013)

Opinion

No. 13-1331

04-23-2013

In re: ERIC FLORES, Petitioner.

Eric Flores, Petitioner Pro Se.


UNPUBLISHED


On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Flores, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Eric Flores petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement of the U.S. Department of Education has unduly delayed in ruling on his appeal. He seeks an order from this court directing the Deputy Assistant Secretary to impose sanctions against the University of Texas at El Paso for alleged violations of Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States 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).

The relief sought by Flores is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Flores' motions to exceed length limitations, and 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


Summaries of

In re Flores

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Apr 23, 2013
519 F. App'x 150 (4th Cir. 2013)
Case details for

In re Flores

Case Details

Full title:In re: ERIC FLORES, Petitioner.

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Apr 23, 2013

Citations

519 F. App'x 150 (4th Cir. 2013)