In Re: Edgar Searcy, No. 15-1841 (4th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1841 In Re: EDGAR SEARCY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:15-hc-02126-BO) Submitted: September 29, 2015 Decided: October 1, 2015 Before WILKINSON, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edgar Searcy, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Edgar Searcy petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking to challenge civil commitments under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 1976 (“the Adam Walsh Act”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 4247-4248 (2012). We conclude that Searcy is not entitled to mandamus relief. “Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy, to be invoked only in extraordinary circumstances.” F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. United States v. Moussaoui, 333 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief Braxton, 258 F.3d 250, 261 (4th Cir. 2001). be used as a substitute for appeal.” sought. In re Mandamus “may not In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). The relief sought by Searcy 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 contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 2

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.