Opinion
22-1866 22-1867
10-17-2022
In re: ABDU-SALIM GOULD, a/k/a Salim Abdu Gould, a/k/a Salimabdu Gould, Petitioner. In re: ABDU-SALIM GOULD, a/k/a Salim Abdu Gould, a/k/a Salimabdu Gould, Petitioner.
Abdu-Salim Gould, Petitioner Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: October 13, 2022
On Petitions for Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition. (5:21-ct-03079-BO; 5:21-ct-03053-BO)
Abdu-Salim Gould, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Abdu-Salim Gould filed these two petitions for writs of mandamus and prohibition seeking to challenge the district court's orders dismissing his two lawsuits for failure to comply with the court's orders to particularize his complaints and denying his motions for reconsideration. We conclude that Gould is not entitled to 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 [he] desires." Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). Likewise, a writ of prohibition is a "drastic and extraordinary remedy which should be granted only when the petitioner has shown his right to the writ to be clear and undisputable and that the actions of the court were a clear abuse of discretion." In re Vargas, 723 F.2d 1461, 1468 (10th Cir. 1983). Additionally, neither a writ of mandamus nor a writ of prohibition may be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007) (mandamus); Vargas, 723 F.2d at 1468 (prohibition).
The relief sought by Gould is not available by way of mandamus or prohibition. Accordingly, we deny the petitions for writs of mandamus and prohibition. 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.
PETITIONS DENIED