In re: Sloan v. ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1457
In Re: SAMUEL H. SLOAN, a/k/a Ismail Sloan,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (6:09-cv-00005-NKM)
Submitted: August 6, 2009 Decided: August 26, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Samuel H. Sloan, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Samuel H. Sloan has filed a petition for writ of
mandamus or prohibition with this court, requesting we remove
Judge Norman K. Moon from further adjudicating Sloan’s civil
action in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia. Mandamus relief is available only when
the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. United
States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 517 (4th Cir. 2003).
Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should be used only in
extraordinary circumstances. Id. at 516. Mandamus may not be
used as a substitute for appeal. In re United Steelworkers, 595
F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979).
Similarly, a writ of prohibition should not issue
unless it “clearly appears that the inferior court is about to
exceed its jurisdiction.” Smith v. Whitney, 116 U.S. 167, 176
(1886). A writ of prohibition, like mandamus, a drastic remedy,
should be granted only where the petitioner’s right to the
requested relief is clear and indisputable. In re Vargas, 723
F.2d 1461, 1468 (10th Cir. 1983); In re Missouri, 664 F.2d 178,
180 (8th Cir. 1981). Further, a writ of prohibition should be
granted only where the petitioner has no other adequate means of
relief, In re Banker’s Trust Co., 775 F.2d 545, 547 (3d Cir.
1985), and a writ of prohibition may not be used as a substitute
for the normal appellate process. Missouri, 664 F.2d at 180.
2
Our review of the record indicates that Sloan’s action
has been dismissed by the district court and no motions remain
outstanding. Sloan v. Smith, No. 6:09-cv-00005-NKM (W.D. Va.
Feb. 24, Apr. 23, 2009). Accordingly, while we grant leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, we deny Sloan’s petition as moot. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3