UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1671
In Re: EDDY BAILEY,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(2:10-cv-00129-RAJ-TEM)
Submitted: September 19, 2013 Decided: October 4, 2013
Before DAVIS, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eddy Bailey, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eddy Bailey petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking
an order (1) directing the district court to act on this court’s
prior opinion remanding his civil action for further
proceedings, (2) holding the district court in “contempt of
court” for failure to comply with our opinion, and (3) issuing a
subpoena for records of his email accounts. We conclude that
Bailey is not entitled to mandamus relief.
“Mandamus is a drastic remedy, to be invoked only in
extraordinary situations.” United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d
509, 516 (4th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Mandamus relief “may not be used as a substitute for appeal.”
In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
To obtain mandamus relief, the 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 marks omitted).
Bailey first asserts that the district court has
unreasonably delayed in ruling on his civil action following
remand. However, the district court issued its final judgment
in his case shortly after Bailey petitioned for mandamus relief.
2
Because Bailey has already received the relief he seeks, this
portion of his mandamus petition is moot.
Turning to Bailey’s remaining requests, we conclude
that the relief Bailey seeks is not available by way of
mandamus. See Lockheed Martin, 503 F.3d at 353 (mandamus relief
may not be used as a substitute for appeal); Braxton, 258 F.3d
at 261 (mandamus relief is only available when a party has a
clear right to the requested relief).
Accordingly, although we grant Bailey leave to appeal
in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for 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
3