IN RE: William Scott DAVIS (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.2021-04-30No. No. 20-2230, No. 20-2242

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court denied the petitions for a writ of mandamus because Davis was not entitled to mandamus relief.

William Scott Davis petitioned for a writ of mandamus asking the court to declare certain district court orders void. The court explained that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only in rare circumstances and only when a petitioner has a clear legal right to the relief requested. Mandamus cannot serve as a substitute for the normal appellate process.

The court found that Davis did not qualify for mandamus relief because the remedy he sought was not properly available through that mechanism. Accordingly, the court denied his petitions without oral argument, finding the written submissions sufficient to resolve the matter.

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

Key issues

Standards for mandamus relief in extraordinary circumstances
Whether petitioner has clear legal right to mandamus relief
Prohibition on using mandamus as appellate substitute

Procedural posture

Davis filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the appellate court seeking to void district court orders.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

William Scott Davis, Jr., petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order declaring the district courts orders void. We conclude that Davis 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. Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795. 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 Davis is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petitions for a 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.

PETITIONS DENIED

PER CURIAM:

Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.