IN RE: Daniel Johnson WILLIS, Petitioner, 689 F. App'x 761

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Daniel Johnson Willis petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to file his civil complaints. We conclude that Willis 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, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (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 Marlin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). The relief sought by Willis is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition and corrected 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 The court has already reviewed, in 10-1740, the denial of leave to file a complaint in 4:10-mc-1. The motion for leave to file a complaint in 4:17-mc-2-H is still pending in the district court.