In Re: Alexander Matthews, No. 14-2291 (4th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2291 IN RE: ALEXANDER MATTHEWS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:12-cv-00132-LO; 1:11-cr-00348-LO-1; 1:11-cr-00087-LO-1) Submitted: April 16, 2015 Decided: April 20, 2015 Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alexander Matthews, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Alexander Matthews petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to fully claims in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. address all We conclude that Matthews 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). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). The relief sought by Matthews 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 and all associated supplemental and amended petitions. 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.