Summary
denying request for writ of mandamus to compel district court to address claims in his § 2255 proceedings
Summary of this case from Nance v. WerlichOpinion
No. 13-1421
08-23-2013
In Re: JIMMY LAWRENCE NANCE, Petitioner.
Jimmy Lawrence Nance, Petitioner Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(7:92-cr-00135-JCT-RSB-1)
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jimmy Lawrence Nance, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Jimmy Lawrence Nance petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the district court to address claims he contends were raised but not resolved in his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) proceedings. We conclude that Nance is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States 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).
The relief sought by Nance is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant Nance leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. Nance's motions for appointment of counsel and to amend the mandamus petition are denied. 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