In Re: Daniel J. Willis

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1323
In re: DANIEL J. WILLIS,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (No. 4:10-mc-00006)
Submitted: July 18, 2011 Decided: July 26, 2011
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daniel Johnson Willis, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Johnson Willis petitions for a writ of mandamus
seeking an order compelling the district court to adjudicate
pleadings he filed as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint.
Willis is required to comply with a pre-filing injunction, which
includes a determination that he has stated a claim before the
district court may adjudicate the pleading. After Willis filed
the petition, the district court entered an order denying
Willis’s motion for leave to file the § 1983 complaint holding
that Willis had not complied with the prefiling injunction
because he failed to state a legal claim. Willis amended his
petition for writ of mandamus to include that the court direct
the district court to adjudicate the complaint. We conclude
that Willis 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 in
Willis’s original petition is moot because the district court
2
ruled on the motion for leave to file while the petition was
pending. Further, Willis could have appealed the order and did
not do so. Therefore, mandamus is not an available remedy. See
id.Although we grant Willis’s motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis, 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 the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3