UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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