In re: Keith Davis, No. 16-1013 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1013 In re: KEITH A. DAVIS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:11-cr-00512-MBS-1) Submitted: April 19, 2016 Decided: April 22, 2016 Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keith A. Davis, Petitioner Pro Se. John David Rowell, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Keith A. Davis petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to produce a more complete appellate record concerning its denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and grant him leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We conclude that Davis 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). This appeal Court of the § 2255 motion. Cir. 2015). has already district considered court’s order and dismissed denying relief Davis’ on his United States v. Davis, 607 F. App’x 320 (4th Consequently, Davis’ claims regarding the appellate record and his fee status before the district court are moot. To the extent Davis attempts to challenge anew the district court’s denial of his § 2255 motion, relief is unavailable to him because mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). We therefore conclude that the available by way of mandamus. 2 relief Davis seeks is not Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus and Davis’ motion to vacate. facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the 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.
