In re: Jose Manlapaz ( 2021 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-2128
In re: JOSE BENJAMIN MANLAPAZ, a/k/a Mr. Ben, a/k/a Ben Manlapaz,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Extraordinary Writ. (1:17-cr-00115-AJT-1)
Submitted: February 18, 2021 Decided: February 22, 2021
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jose Benjamin Manlapaz, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jose Benjamin Manlapaz has filed with this court a petition for an extraordinary writ
of error in which he assigns error to the district court’s June 23, 2020, order denying
Manlapaz’s motion for compassionate release. We deny the petition.
Under the All Writs Act (“the Act”), federal courts “may issue all writs necessary
or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and
principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). The Act “is a residual source of authority to issue
writs that are not otherwise covered by statute.” Carlisle v. United States, 517 U.S. 416,
429 (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). Due to the Act’s residual nature, “[w]here
a statute specifically addresses the particular issue at hand, it is that authority, and not the
All Writs Act, that is controlling.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, prisoners
may not resort to the Act, or to the common law writs it authorizes, when there is another
available remedy. See, e.g., United States v. Swaby, 855 F.3d 233, 238 (4th Cir. 2017) (“A
writ of coram nobis is an exceptional remedy that may be granted only when a fundamental
error has occurred and no other available remedy exists.”); United States v. Torres, 282
F.3d 1241, 1245 (10th Cir. 2002) (recognizing that a writ of audita querela is unavailable
if the petitioner has other relief available).
Because an appeal of the district court’s final order was available to Manlapaz,
Manlapaz fails to satisfy the requirements for relief under the Act. We thus deny
Manlapaz’s petition for extraordinary writ. We dispense with oral argument because
2
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3