In Re: Eddy Bailey, No. 13-1671 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1671 In Re: EDDY BAILEY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:10-cv-00129-RAJ-TEM) Submitted: September 19, 2013 Decided: October 4, 2013 Before DAVIS, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eddy Bailey, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eddy Bailey petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order (1) directing the district court to act on this court s prior opinion proceedings, (2) remanding holding his the civil district action court for in further contempt of court for failure to comply with our opinion, and (3) issuing a subpoena for records of his email accounts. We conclude that Bailey is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus is a drastic remedy, to be invoked only in extraordinary situations. United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516 (4th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). Mandamus relief may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). To obtain mandamus relief, the petitioner must show that: (1) he has a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought; (2) the responding party has a clear duty to do the specific act requested; (3) the act requested is an official act or duty; (4) there are no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires; and (5) the issuance of the writ will effect right and justice in the circumstances. In re Braxton, 258 F.3d 250, 261 (4th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). Bailey first asserts that the district court has unreasonably delayed in ruling on his civil action following remand. However, the district court issued its final judgment in his case shortly after Bailey petitioned for mandamus relief. 2 Because Bailey has already received the relief he seeks, this portion of his mandamus petition is moot. Turning that the to relief mandamus. Bailey s Bailey remaining seeks is not requests, we available conclude by way of See Lockheed Martin, 503 F.3d at 353 (mandamus relief may not be used as a substitute for appeal); Braxton, 258 F.3d at 261 (mandamus relief is only available when a party has a clear right to the requested relief). Accordingly, although we grant Bailey leave to appeal in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this 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.
