Opinion
No. 18-2020
02-20-2019
In re: HARRISON LEWIS, III, Petitioner.
Harrison Lewis, III, Petitioner Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:17-cr-00323-GJH-1) Before NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Harrison Lewis, III, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Harrison Lewis, III, petitions for a writ of mandamus, asking this court to compel the district court to take certain actions in his criminal case. At the time that he filed the petition, he had been convicted by a jury and was awaiting sentencing. He has since been sentenced and has a direct appeal pending. See United States v. Lewis, No. 18-4729.
"[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 and citations omitted). "Courts provide mandamus relief only when (1) petitioner 'ha[s] 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. (quoting Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004)). The writ of mandamus is not a substitute for appeal in derogation of policies favoring review upon final judgment. Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 97 (1967); In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
We conclude that Lewis fails to show that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, although we grant him leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny his other pending motion and his 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