In re: Michael Harriot ( 2019 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-2295
In re: MICHAEL OWEN HARRIOT,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(3:99-cr-00341-MBS-3)
Submitted: February 26, 2019 Decided: February 28, 2019
Before KING, THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Owen Harriot, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Owen Harriot petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order
compelling the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing related to several
postconviction motions resolved and pending in the district court. We conclude that
Harriot is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary
circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 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). Mandamus may not be used as a
substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
The relief sought by Harriot is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly,
although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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