In Re: Alexander Matthews v.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2303
In re: ALEXANDER OTIS MATTHEWS,
Petitioner.
No. 14-2304
In re: ALEXANDER OTIS MATTHEWS
Petitioner.
On Petitions for Writ of Mandamus.
(8:10-cr-00706-RWT-1; 1:11-cr-00087-LO-1; 1:11-cr-00348-LO-1;
1:12-cv-00132-LO)
Submitted: March 17, 2015 Decided: March 19, 2015
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alexander Otis Matthews, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alexander Matthews petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking
an order directing the district court to permit inmates to keep
transcripts in their cells and to permit the filing of attorney
misconduct claims. He also seeks to have this court reconsider
our prior decision denying a certificate of appealability. We
conclude that Matthews is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only
in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist.
Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333
F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, 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). Mandamus may not be used as a
substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d
351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
The relief sought by Matthews is not available by way of
mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, we deny the petitions and amended petitions for
writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
2
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITIONS DENIED
3