IN RE: Timothy Omar HANKINS (2019)

Timothy Omar Hankins, Sr., petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigations and the Department of Homeland Security of his allegations. He also seeks an order returning his house to him and restoring his contractor’s license. Hankins alleges that the district court has unduly delayed acting in his two lawsuits and seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. We conclude that Hankins 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, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (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 Murphy-Brown, LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018).

To the extent that Hankins alleges delay by the district court, our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court entered final orders in Hankins’ cases in May 2019. Accordingly, we deny the mandamus petition as moot as to the claim of delay. The other relief sought by Hankins is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We also deny Hankins’ motion for injunctive relief. 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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.