UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-2070
In re: MAECHEL SHAWN PATTERSON,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:13-ct-03132-D)
Submitted: November 19, 2019 Decided: November 21, 2019
Before WILKINSON and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Maechel Shawn Patterson, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Maechel Shawn Patterson petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order
directing the district court to: (1) vacate its November 6, 2014, order denying
reconsideration of the order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action; (2) liberally
construe his § 1983 complaint as a motion for a sentence reduction; and (3) reduce his
sentence to time served and order his immediate release. We conclude that Patterson 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). Mandamus relief is available only when
the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and no other adequate means for obtaining
that relief. In re Murphy-Brown, LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Further,
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 Patterson is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly,
although we grant leave to proceed 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
2