In re: Mark Ward, No. 08-2190 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2190 In Re: MARK A. WARD, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Submitted: February 12, 2009 (1:08-cv-00054-WO-PTS) Decided: March 13, 2009 Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark A. Ward, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mark A. Ward petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order setting aside the district court s judgment and compelling the clerk of that court to follow internal office protocol in assigning cases to district judges. We conclude that Ward is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Cir. Ass n, mandamus is 860 a F.2d 135, drastic 138 remedy extraordinary circumstances. (4th and should 1988). Further, only used be in Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal, In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979), which is the proper avenue for Ward to pursue setting aside the district appeal court of the judgment. In fact, judgment, which is Ward has currently filed pending a direct in this court. Regarding Ward s request that this court intervene in the clerk s assignment of cases, Ward fails to meet his burden of showing that his right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable. See Beard, 811 F.2d at 826. Ward s petition does not show that the clerk failed to comply with a clear duty in 2 making the judicial assignment in Ward s case. See In re Braxton, 258 F.3d 250, 261 (4th Cir. 2001). The relief sought by Ward 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. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
