USCA4 Appeal: 22-1962 Doc: 4 Filed: 10/18/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1962
In re: DAVID HILL,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:01-cr-00191-CMH-1)
Submitted: October 13, 2022 Decided: October 18, 2022
Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Hill, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1962 Doc: 4 Filed: 10/18/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
David Hill petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district
court to (a) vacate its 2001 order granting Hill’s ex parte motion to seal certain documents;
and (b) unseal documents in Hill’s criminal case, as well as in the criminal prosecution of
one Robert Frazier. We conclude that Hill 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. Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795. The
mandamus petitioner must also demonstrate that he has “no other adequate means to attain
the relief he desires.” Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980).
Hill does not satisfy any of these requirements, particularly in terms of failing to
demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to the relief he seeks. Accordingly, we deny the
instant 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