Opinion
22-1657
09-22-2022
In re: DAVID HILL, Petitioner.
David Hill, Petitioner Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: July 26, 2022
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:21-cv-00112-CMH-TCB; 1:01-cr-00191-CMH-1)
David Hill, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
In this petition for a writ of mandamus, David Hill, a federal inmate, seeks an order from this court compelling the district court to accept and consider the postjudgment motions he attempted to file after the court imposed a prefiling injunction on Hill. See Hill v. McNulty, No. 1:21-cv-00112-CMH-TCB (E.D. Va., PACER No. 61). "[M]andamus is a drastic remedy that must be reserved for extraordinary situations." In re Murphy-Brown, LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). We may afford a petitioner mandamus relief "only when (1) petitioner has no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires; (2) petitioner has shown a clear and indisputable right to the requested relief; and (3) the court deems the writ appropriate under the circumstances." Id. (cleaned up).
Upon review of Hill's petition and the relevant materials, we conclude that Hill has not shown that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a 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.
We observe that in Appeal No. 22-6223, United States v. Hill, we have vacated the district court's order imposing what is essentially the same prefiling injunction underlying the instant mandamus petition, see United States v. Hill, No. 1:01-cr-00191-CMH-1 (E.D. Va., PACER No. 435), and remanded that matter to the district court for further proceedings related to the prefiling injunction.