UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-1014
In re: PERCY JAMES TUCKER,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:09-cr-00182-AWA-DEM-1)
Submitted: May 7, 2020 Decided: June 2, 2020
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Percy James Tucker, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Percy James Tucker petitions for a writ of mandamus in his closed criminal case.
He seeks an order from this court directing the clerk to act. “[M]andamus is a drastic
remedy that must be reserved for extraordinary situations.” In re Murphy-Brown, LLC,
907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “Courts
provide mandamus relief only when (1) petitioner ‘ha[s] no other adequate means to attain
the relief [he] desires’; (2) petitioner has shown a ‘clear and indisputable’ right to the
requested relief; and (3) the court deems the writ ‘appropriate under the circumstances.’”
Id. (quoting Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004)). The writ of
mandamus is not a substitute for appeal after final judgment. Will v. United States, 389
U.S. 90, 97 (1967); In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
We have reviewed Tucker’s petition and conclude that he fails to show he is entitled
to the requested relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. While
this petition was pending, Tucker also filed a motion for home confinement seeking his
release from prison based on the risks associated with the COVID-19 virus. We deny the
motion without prejudice to Tucker re-filing his motion in the district court, which should
consider the motion in the first instance, and without prejudice to Tucker filing another
mandamus petition if he is barred from filing his motion in the district court. 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