In re: Richard Martin ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                      UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 20-2314
    In re: RICHARD B. MARTIN, JR.,
    Petitioner.
    On Petition for Extraordinary Writ.
    Submitted: January 19, 2021                                       Decided: January 26, 2021
    Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Richard B. Martin, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Richard B. Martin, Jr., petitions for an extraordinary writ, see 
    28 U.S.C. § 1651
    ;
    Fed. R. App. P. 21, seeking an order declaring him an officer of the federal judiciary and
    providing him protection, on threat of criminal prosecution, from impediments to his pro
    se civil litigation. We conclude that Martin is not entitled to an extraordinary writ for the
    relief he seeks.
    The All Writs Act, 
    28 U.S.C. § 1651
    , authorizes the federal courts to “issue all writs
    necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages
    and principles of law.” “The authority to issue a writ under the All Writs Act is not a font
    of jurisdiction.” United States v. Denedo, 
    556 U.S. 904
    , 914 (2009). Rather, this court’s
    authority to issue extraordinary writs under the All Writs Act “is only incidental to and in
    aid of [its] appellate jurisdiction, which Congress has given it over district courts, and
    administrative boards and agencies.” Gurley v. Superior Ct. of Mecklenburg Cnty., 
    411 F.2d 586
    , 587 (4th Cir. 1969) (per curiam) (citations omitted); see Parr v. United States,
    
    351 U.S. 513
    , 520 (1956).
    The relief sought by Martin is not available by way of an extraordinary writ.
    Accordingly, we deny the petition for extraordinary writ. We deny Martin’s motion to
    strike and deny as moot his motion to expedite decision. 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: 20-2314

Filed Date: 1/26/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/26/2021