In Re: Darrell Henderson v.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1181
IN RE: DARRELL LYNN HENDERSON,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(1:07-cr-00067-CG-M-1)
Submitted: March 17, 2015 Decided: March 20, 2015
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darrell Lynn Henderson, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darrell Lynn Henderson petitions for a writ of mandamus
seeking an order requiring the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Alabama and certain prison officials to
grant him certain credit toward his sentence. We conclude that
Henderson is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only
in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. 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).
This court’s authority to issue mandamus relief “is only
incidental to and in aid of appellate jurisdiction, which
Congress has given it over district courts.” Gurley v. Superior
Court of Mecklenburg Cnty., 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969)
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Because we
lack appellate jurisdiction over the Southern District of
Alabama, we lack jurisdiction to issue the requested writ to
that court. We also conclude that Henderson has not met the
burden required for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to the
prison officials because he has not shown that he has no other
avenue to seek relief.
2
Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We also
deny as moot Henderson’s request for an expedited 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
3