In re: Dale Richardson, No. 23-1895 (4th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-1895 In re: DALE J. RICHARDSON, Petitioner, On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court of South Carolina, at Charleston. (2:22-mc-00637-DCN) Submitted: September 26, 2023 Decided: October 20, 2023 Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dale J. Richardson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dale J. Richardson petitions for a writ of mandamus pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3). We conclude that Richardson is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); In re Murphy-Brown, LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner shows “a clear and indisputable right to the requested relief” and “has no other adequate means to attain the relief [he] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). Richardson did not file a proper § 3771 motion in the district court, so there is no reasonable basis for finding we have jurisdiction over Richardson’s petition under § 3771(d)(3). And mandamus generally may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). The relief Richardson seeks is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, 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.