In re: Jane Doe

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1934 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1934
In re: JANE DOE,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:22-cv-00947-PTG-JFA)
Submitted: December 20, 2022 Decided: December 22, 2022
Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jane Doe, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1934 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Jane Doe petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district
court to grant her in forma pauperis status, leave to proceed under a pseudonym and under
seal, leave to file electronically, leave to exceed page number requirements, and a
temporary restraining order. We conclude that Doe 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 [she] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (cleaned up).
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 Doe is not available by way of
mandamus. 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