In Re: Michael Hickson v. , 590 F. App'x 268 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2097
In re: MICHAEL ANTHONY HICKSON,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(8:09-cr-00213-RWT-2; 8:13-cv-02790-RWT)
Submitted: January 22, 2015 Decided: January 26, 2015
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Anthony Hickson, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Anthony Hickson petitions for a writ of
mandamus, seeking this court’s review of his motion under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) or, alternatively, an order recusing the
district court judge. 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). Further, 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). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute
for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th
Cir. 2007).
We conclude that the relief sought by Hickson is not
available by way of mandamus. Moreover, to the extent that he
argues delay by the district court, our review of the district
court’s docket reveals that the court has ruled on Hickson’s
motion. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus and
the motion for bail or release pending appeal. 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