UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-1355
In re: DAVID HALL CRUM,
Petitioner,
No. 21-1356
In re: DAVID HALL CRUM,
Petitioner.
On Petitions for Writs of Mandamus. (5:20-cv-00658; 5:20-cv-00655)
Submitted: August 19, 2021 Decided: August 23, 2021
Before MOTZ, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Hall Crum, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
District of Columbia Code offender David Hall Crum filed identical petitions for
writs of mandamus and supplemental petitions for writs of mandamus, concerning his 28
U.S.C. § 2241 petition and his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents
of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Crum challenges the magistrate
judges’ handling of the underlying proceedings and seeks direct review of his § 2241
petition and his Bivens action in this court, and damages. We conclude that Crum is not
entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary
circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); In re Murphy-Brown,
LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Further, mandamus relief is available only when
the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and “has no other adequate means to
attain the relief [he] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (alteration and internal
quotation marks omitted). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re
Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
It appears Crum attempts to substitute mandamus for direct appeal. Accordingly,
we deny the petitions for writs of mandamus and all supplemental petitions for writs 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.
PETITIONS DENIED
2