UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-2126
In re: MICHAEL S. GORBEY,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:17-cv-00119-FPS-JES)
Submitted: January 30, 2018 Decided: February 1, 2018
Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Gorbey, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael S. Gorbey petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has
unduly delayed in filing his pleadings in a Bivens ∗ action. He seeks an order from this
court directing the district court to promptly process his pleadings. Our review of the
docket sheet reveals that, after his initial complaint, Gorbey did not file further pleadings
with the district court and that the district court dismissed his action without prejudice.
Accordingly, to the extent that Gorbey seeks an order addressing undue delay, the
petition is moot.
In subsequent memoranda filed with this court, Gorbey acknowledges the
dismissal of his action in district court and seeks an order directing the district court to
reopen the case and to conduct an imminent danger hearing. We conclude that Gorbey is
not entitled to mandamus 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). 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 Gorbey is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly,
although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of
∗
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
(1971).
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