In re: Andrew Straw ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1120 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/04/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-1120
In re: ANDREW U. D. STRAW,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Submitted: March 15, 2023 Decided: April 4, 2023
Before RICHARDSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andrew U. D. Straw, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1120 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/04/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Andrew U. D. Straw petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the
United States Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina to grant him access to file
pleadings through the court’s electronic filing system. We conclude that Straw is not
entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary
circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); In re Murphy-Brown,
LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Further, mandamus relief is available only when
the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and “has no other adequate means to
attain the relief [he] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (alteration and internal
quotation marks omitted).
The relief sought by Straw is not available by way of mandamus. Straw has not
shown that he has a clear right to file electronically as a pro se litigant in the Eastern District
of North Carolina. See E.D.N.C. R. 5.1(b)(1), (f) (stating that pro se litigants are not
permitted to file electronically in the Eastern District of North Carolina). Accordingly, we
deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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