Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: Alexander Matthews V., 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views3 pages
    Alexander Matthews filed two petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking orders from the court. The petitions were denied. Matthews sought to have the district court order that inmates be allowed to keep transcripts in their cells and file attorney misconduct claims. The court determined that mandamus relief is only appropriate in extraordinary circumstances, which were not present in this case. The court also noted that mandamus cannot be used as a substitute for the appeals process. Therefore, the petitions were denied and oral arguments were not held.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-03-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-2303

    Original Title

    In Re: Alexander Matthews v., 4th Cir. (2015)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Alexander Matthews filed two petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking orders from the court. The petitions were denied. Matthews sought to have the district court order that inmates be allowed to keep transcripts in their cells and file attorney misconduct claims. The court determined that mandamus relief is only appropriate in extraordinary circumstances, which were not present in this case. The court also noted that mandamus cannot be used as a substitute for the appeals process. Therefore, the petitions were denied and oral arguments were not held.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    4 views3 pages

    In Re: Alexander Matthews V., 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Alexander Matthews filed two petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking orders from the court. The petitions were denied. Matthews sought to have the district court order that inmates be allowed to keep transcripts in their cells and file attorney misconduct claims. The court determined that mandamus relief is only appropriate in extraordinary circumstances, which were not present in this case. The court also noted that mandamus cannot be used as a substitute for the appeals process. Therefore, the petitions were denied and oral arguments were not held.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 14-2303

    In re:

    ALEXANDER OTIS MATTHEWS,


    Petitioner.

    No. 14-2304

    In re:

    ALEXANDER OTIS MATTHEWS


    Petitioner.

    On Petitions for Writ of Mandamus.


    (8:10-cr-00706-RWT-1; 1:11-cr-00087-LO-1; 1:11-cr-00348-LO-1;
    1:12-cv-00132-LO)

    Submitted:

    March 17, 2015

    Decided:

    March 19, 2015

    Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Alexander Otis Matthews, Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Alexander Matthews petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking
    an order directing the district court to permit inmates to keep
    transcripts in their cells and to permit the filing of attorney
    misconduct claims.

    He also seeks to have this court reconsider

    our prior decision denying a certificate of appealability.

    We

    conclude that Matthews 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.
    135,

    138

    (4th

    In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn, 860 F.2d


    Cir.

    1988).

    substitute for appeal.

    Mandamus

    may

    not

    be

    used

    as

    In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d

    351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).


    The relief sought by Matthews is not available by way of
    mandamus.

    Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in

    forma pauperis, we deny the petitions and amended petitions for


    writ of mandamus.
    facts

    and

    legal

    We dispense with oral argument because the


    contentions

    are

    adequately

    presented

    in

    the

    materials

    before

    this

    court

    and

    argument

    would

    not

    aid

    the

    decisional process.

    PETITIONS DENIED

    You might also like