Opinion
No. 14-2303 No. 14-2304
03-19-2015
In re: ALEXANDER OTIS MATTHEWS, Petitioner.
Alexander Otis Matthews, Petitioner Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED On Petitions for Writ of Mandamus.
(8:10-cr-00706-RWT-1; 1:11-cr-00087-LO-1; 1:11-cr-00348-LO-1; 1:12-cv-00132-LO)
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alexander Otis Matthews, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Alexander Matthews petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to permit inmates to keep transcripts in their cells and to permit the filing of attorney misconduct claims. He also seeks to have this court reconsider our prior decision denying a certificate of appealability. We conclude that Matthews is not entitled to mandamus relief.
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). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
The relief sought by Matthews is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petitions and amended petitions 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.
PETITIONS DENIED