Opinion
22-1962
10-18-2022
In re: DAVID HILL, Petitioner.
David Hill, Petitioner Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: October 13, 2022
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:01-cr-00191-CMH-1)
David Hill, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
David Hill petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to (a) vacate its 2001 order granting Hill's ex parte motion to seal certain documents; and (b) unseal documents in Hill's criminal case, as well as in the criminal prosecution of one Robert Frazier. We conclude that Hill 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. Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795. The mandamus petitioner must also demonstrate that he has "no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires." Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980).
Hill does not satisfy any of these requirements, particularly in terms of failing to demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to the relief he seeks. Accordingly, we deny the instant 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