Opinion
23-1195
05-10-2023
In re: MICHAEL ALONZA RUFUS, Individual and non-other person - see Dictionary Act, Petitioner.
Michael Alonza Rufus, Petitioner Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: April 6, 2023
On Petitions for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. (1:22-cv-00977-PTG-IDD)
Michael Alonza Rufus, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Michael Alonza Rufus petitions for a writ of mandamus, asking this court to order the district court to issue a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. "[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). "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 after 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 have reviewed the mandamus petition and amended mandamus petition, and we conclude that Rufus fails to show that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petitions. 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.