In Re: Celeste Broughton, No. 17-1593 (4th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1593 In re: CELESTE G. BROUGHTON, a/k/a Celeste Gold Broughton, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus (No. 5:16-cv-00302-BO) Submitted: June 20, 2017 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Celeste G. Broughton, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Decided: June 22, 2017 PER CURIAM: Celeste G. Broughton petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the district court to cancel a scheduled hearing and hold a jury trial, and compelling recusal of the district court judge. We conclude that Broughton 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). Here, the district court granted Broughton’s motion to cancel the hearing and transferred the case to a different district court judge. Therefore, Broughton’s request for a writ of mandamus regarding those issues is moot. 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

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.