In Re: Eric Richardson v. , 694 F. App'x 139 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                       UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 17-1489
    In re: ERIC M. RICHARDSON, a/k/a Father,
    Petitioner.
    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:09-cr-00288-JKB-28; 1:14-cv-02542-JKB)
    Submitted: July 27, 2017                                          Decided: July 31, 2017
    Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Eric Richardson, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Eric Richardson petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court
    has unduly delayed in ruling on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     (2012) petition. He seeks an order
    from this court directing the district court to act. However, we find the present record
    does not reveal undue delay in the district court. Richardson also seeks an order granting
    relief on his claim that he does not qualify as a career offender and directing the district
    court to recuse itself. We conclude that Richardson is not entitled to mandamus relief.
    Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary
    circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. 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 and no other adequate
    remedy is available. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 
    860 F.2d 135
    , 138 (4th Cir.
    1988). Because Richardson can pursue his career offender claim through his § 2241
    petition and subsequent 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2012) motion, the relief he seeks is not
    available by way of mandamus. Nor has Richardson established a clear right to the
    district court’s recusal.
    Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-1489

Citation Numbers: 694 F. App'x 139

Judges: Agee, Floyd, Hamilton, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 7/31/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024