In re: Julian Ash ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1713 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/28/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-1713
In re: JULIAN R. ASH,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. (1:22-cv-00649-GLR)
Submitted: August 24, 2023 Decided: August 28, 2023
Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Julian R. Ash, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1713 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/28/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Julian R. Ash petitions for a writ of mandamus, raising several challenges to the
underlying district court proceedings. We conclude that Ash 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 or, in this
case, a rehearing petition. See In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353
(4th Cir. 2007).
Ash does not satisfy the standard for mandamus relief. Accordingly, 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