eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 2022-11

In re: Sequoia McKinnon ( 2022 )


Menu:
 
  • USCA4 Appeal: 22-1852      Doc: 15         Filed: 11/22/2022    Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1852
In re: SEQUOIA MCKINNON; RON SANTA MCCRAY; LAWRENCE
CRAWFORD,
Petitioners.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(8:22-cv-01205-RMG; 1:22-cv-01204-TLW-SVH; 9:21-cv-02526-TLW)
Submitted: November 17, 2022                                Decided: November 22, 2022
Before KING, QUATTLEBAUM and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sequoia McKinnon, Ron Santa McCray, and Lawrence Crawford, Petitioners Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1852       Doc: 15        Filed: 11/22/2022      Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Petitioners seek several forms of mandamus relief, including a writ of mandamus
against United States Senior District Judge Terry L. Wooten and United States District
Judge Richard M. Gergel. Petitioners have also filed a motion to supplement, which, in
relevant part, seeks an order directing Judge Gergel to allow the filing of certain
documents.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary
circumstances.     Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct.,
    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).
Upon review of the relevant filings, we conclude that Petitioners have not
established that extraordinary circumstances exist warranting mandamus relief. Moreover,
to the extent Petitioners challenge the district court’s rulings in their respective district
court actions, mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin
Corp.,
    503 F.3d 351
    , 353 (4th Cir. 2007). Finally, to the extent Petitioners ask that the
district court judges recuse themselves from their respective district court actions,
Petitioners have not established extra-judicial bias. See In re Beard,
    811 F.2d 818
    , 826-27
(4th Cir. 1987).
Accordingly, we deny the motion to supplement and deny mandamus relief. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1852     Doc: 15        Filed: 11/22/2022   Pg: 3 of 3
presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITION DENIED
3