UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2382
In re: DANIEL JOHNSON WILLIS
Petitioner.
No. 15-2462
In re: DANIEL JOHNSON WILLIS
Petitioner.
No. 15-2518
In re: DANIEL JOHNSON WILLIS
Petitioner.
No. 16-1130
In re: DANIEL JOHNSON WILLIS,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writs of Mandamus and Extraordinary Writ
(No. 4:15-mc-00004-H; 4:15-MC-00001-H; 4:15-mc-00002-H; 4:15-mc-
00003-H; 4:15-mc-00004-H; 4:06-cv-00143-F; 4:96-cv-00006-H;
4:96-cv-00089-H)
Submitted: March 29, 2016 Decided: March 31, 2016
Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daniel Johnson Willis, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Johnson Willis petitions for a writ of mandamus and
extraordinary writ seeking an order invalidating the preliminary
filing injunctions entered against him in this court and the
district court. We conclude that Willis is not entitled to
relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only
in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. 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). We have carefully reviewed Willis’s petitions for relief
and find them to be without merit. Further, mandamus may not be
used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp.,
503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). And, this court does not
have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state
officials. Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg Cty., 411
F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969).
The relief sought by Willis is not available by way of
mandamus or extraordinary writ. Accordingly, although we grant
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and Willis’s motion to
supplement titled as a “motion to amend,” we deny the petitions.
3
We deny Willis’s motion for oral argument and all other
remaining pending motions filed by Willis. 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.
PETITIONS DENIED
4