UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1395
In Re: STANLEY LORENZO WILLIAMS,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:07-cv-00757-TDS-RAE)
Submitted: September 23, 2009 Decided: October 2, 2009
Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stanley Lorenzo Williams, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Stanley Lorenzo Williams petitions for a writ of
mandamus seeking an order compelling the district court to grant
relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. We conclude
that Williams is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in
extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S.
394, 402 (1976). “Courts are extremely reluctant to grant a
writ of mandamus.” In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir.
1987). To obtain mandamus relief, a petitioner must show that:
(1) he has a clear and indisputable right to the
relief sought; (2) the responding party has a clear
duty to do the specific act requested; (3) the act
requested is an official act or duty; (4) there are no
other adequate means to attain the relief he desires;
and (5) the issuance of the writ will effect right and
justice in the circumstances.
In re Braxton, 258 F.3d 250, 261 (4th Cir. 2001) (internal
quotation and citation omitted).
As Williams concedes, the district court acted on his
§ 2254 petition. Therefore his initial basis for filing the
mandamus petition is moot. To the extent that Williams wishes
to challenge the district court’s final decision, mandamus
relief is not “a substitute for appeal.” In re United
Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979).
Turning to his motion to amend, Williams seeks to
reopen the time to file an appeal from the district court’s
2
order denying § 2254 relief, evidently conceding that he did not
file his notice of appeal within the thirty-day appeal period,
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), or the excusable neglect period, Fed.
R. App. P. 4(a)(5). This court lacks jurisdiction to grant the
relief Williams seeks. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6) (only “[t]he
district court may reopen the time to file an appeal”).
Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, we deny Williams’ petition for writ of mandamus
and his motion to amend. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3