In Re: Jorge Lerma-Duenas v.

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2208 In Re: JORGE L. LERMA-DUENAS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (0:13-cv-01076-RBH) Submitted: November 6, 2013 Decided: November 21, 2013 Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jorge L. Lerma-Duenas, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jorge L. Lerma-Duenas petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to grant his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2013), * and order his release from custody and removal to Mexico. We conclude that Lerma-Duenas 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. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). 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 Lerma-Duenas is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of * To the extent the petition for a writ of mandamus asserts that the district court has unduly delayed acting on Lerma- Duenas’ § 2241 petition, such claim is mooted by the court’s entry of judgment dismissing the petition without prejudice. Lerma-Duenas v. Atkinson, No. 0:13-cv-01076-RBH (D.S.C. Oct. 11, 2013). 2 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