From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Schiff

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Oct 24, 2022
No. 22-1813 (4th Cir. Oct. 24, 2022)

Opinion

22-1813

10-24-2022

In re: GRAHAM SCHIFF, Petitioner.

Graham Harry Schiff, Petitioner Pro Se.


UNPUBLISHED

Submitted: October 19, 2022

Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:22-cv-00542-GLR)

Graham Harry Schiff, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 1

PER CURIAM

Graham Harry Schiff petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order reopening his suit that was dismissed in district court and removing the district court judge. We conclude that Schiff 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 and "has no other adequate means to attain the relief [he] desires." Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). 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 Schiff is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the 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 2


Summaries of

In re Schiff

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Oct 24, 2022
No. 22-1813 (4th Cir. Oct. 24, 2022)
Case details for

In re Schiff

Case Details

Full title:In re: GRAHAM SCHIFF, Petitioner.

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Oct 24, 2022

Citations

No. 22-1813 (4th Cir. Oct. 24, 2022)