LAW.coLAW.co

IN RE: Deafueh MONBO (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.2021-08-26No. No. 21-1456

Summary

Holding. The petition for a writ of mandamus was denied because mandamus relief was not the appropriate vehicle for the relief Monbo sought.

Deafueh Monbo sought a writ of mandamus directing a district court to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(b) by signing, sealing, and issuing a summons. The court explained that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only when a petitioner has a clear legal right to the relief and lacks any other adequate remedy. Because Monbo's requested relief was not appropriately pursued through mandamus, the court concluded he was not entitled to the writ.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

  • Whether mandamus is an appropriate remedy for directing district court compliance with summons procedures
  • Standards for obtaining mandamus relief
  • Availability of alternative remedies

Procedural posture

Monbo petitioned for a writ of mandamus in appellate court seeking to compel district court action regarding issuance of a summons.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

Deafueh Monbo petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to “to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(b) and issue a sign, seal and issue the Summons to Petitioner.” We conclude that Monbo 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, 124 S.Ct. 2576, 159 L.Ed.2d 459 (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 [he] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted).

The relief sought by Monbo 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

PER CURIAM:

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.