In re: Dalton Dixon

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: February 21, 2023
• Docket: 22-2193
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2193 Doc: 15 Filed: 02/21/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-2193

In re: DALTON ALONZO DIXON,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:21-ct-03291-D)

Submitted: February 16, 2023 Decided: February 21, 2023

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dalton Alonzo Dixon, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-2193 Doc: 15 Filed: 02/21/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Dalton Alonzo Dixon petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling

this court, as well as various state officials, to address and respond to Dalton’s previously

filed self-styled “Notice of Renunciation” of his statutory United States citizenship. In his

supplemental petition, Dixon also seeks an order directing that the Commonwealth of

Virginia be removed as a defendant and asserts that the State of North Carolina is

responsible for subjecting Dixon to a foreign jurisdiction.

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 has a clear right to the relief sought and “has no other adequate means to

attain the relief [he] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (alteration and internal

quotation marks omitted).

Upon review of the subject petition and supplement, we conclude that the relief

sought by Dixon is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition

for writ of mandamus. We also deny Dixon’s motion to intervene. 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