Skip to main content

IN RE: Cameron Seth CRAWFORD (2019)

Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

IN RE: Cameron Seth CRAWFORD, a/k/a Cameron G, Petitioner.

No. 19-1162

Decided: April 30, 2019

Before FLOYD and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Cameron Seth Crawford, Petitioner Pro Se.

Cameron Seth Crawford petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order to compel the Government to file a motion. We conclude that Crawford 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). 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 Crawford is not available by way of mandamus, as Crawford must first seek relief in the district court. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition 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.

PETITION DENIED

PER CURIAM:

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Copied to clipboard