In Re: Bond v. , 280 F. App'x 246 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1379
In Re: WILLIAM C. BOND,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(1:07-cv-01188-WDQ)
Submitted: May 2, 2008 Decided: June 2, 2008
Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William C. Bond, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William C. Bond petitions this court for a writ of
mandamus, seeking an order directing the district court and the
United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland to
produce materials and conduct a further search of their records
pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C.A.
§ 552 (West 2007). Bond has filed additional motions in this case,
including a motion to permit him to file a petition that exceeds
the applicable page limits, a motion to file a reply brief, a
motion to recuse any Maryland judges from the panel hearing this
matter, and motions to stay consideration of case No. 08-1320 until
his petition for writ of mandamus had been ruled upon. We conclude
Bond is not entitled to relief.
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). Further, mandamus is a
drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary
circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394,
402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987).
Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re United
Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979).
Bond has failed to demonstrate that he has no other
available means of relief. Because Bond has appealed from the
district court’s dismissal of his FOIA action and may obtain any
- 2 -
relief to which he may be entitled through his direct appeal,
mandamus relief is not available. See In re Braxton, 258 F.3d 250,
261 (4th Cir. 2001). Therefore, while we grant Bond’s motion to
exceed the applicable page limit on his petition and his motion to
file a reply brief, we deny his petition for writ of mandamus.
Furthermore, we deny Bond’s motion for recusal and his motions to
consolidate and stay the appeal in case No. 08-1320. 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.
PETITION DENIED
- 3 -