eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 2011-12

In Re: Ronald Coulter , 456 F. App'x 222 ( 2011 )


Menu:
 
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1823
In Re:    RONALD COULTER,
Petitioner.
On Petitions for Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition.
(0:08-cv-02762-PMD)
Submitted:    November 28, 2011              Decided:   December 1, 2011
Before WILKINSON and        GREGORY,   Circuit   Judges,   and   HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald Coulter, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Coulter petitions for a writ of mandamus and a
writ of prohibition seeking to vacate the district court’s order
granting summary judgment for Respondent on his
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
    (2006) petition and to compel the district court to review his
claims under the proper standard.                   We conclude that Coulter is
not entitled to 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.        In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n,
    860 F.2d 135
    , 138 (4th Cir. 1988).            Likewise, “a writ of prohibition is a
drastic and extraordinary remedy which should be granted only
when the petitioner has shown his right to the writ to be clear
and undisputable and that the actions of the court were a clear
abuse of discretion.”           In re Vargas,
    723 F.2d 1461
    , 1468 (10th
Cir.   1983).         Neither    a   writ      of    mandamus   nor     a    writ    of
prohibition     may    be   used     as   a    substitute     for   appeal.
    Id.
    (prohibition); In re Lockheed Martin Corp.,
    503 F.3d 351
    , 353
(4th Cir. 2007) (mandamus).
The relief sought by Coulter is not available by way
of   mandamus   or    prohibition.            Accordingly,    although       we   grant
2
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny Coulter’s petitions.
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.
PETITIONS DENIED
3