In re: Gregory Clinton

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1111 Doc: 21 Filed: 07/30/2026 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1111

In re: GREGORY K. CLINTON,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. (3:17-cr-000005-GMG-RWT-1)

Submitted: May 4, 2026 Decided: July 30, 2026

Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory K. Clinton, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1111 Doc: 21 Filed: 07/30/2026 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Gregory Clinton petitions for a writ of mandamus ordering the district court to

docket and rule on his motion for compassionate release. The district court refused to file

Clinton’s motion, treating it as barred by a prefiling injunction entered against Clinton in

2022 in response to ongoing frivolous and vexatious litigation conduct. We agree with

Clinton that his motion for compassionate release is not barred by the district court’s

injunction, but we deny his mandamus petition because he has not satisfied all the

requirements for this extraordinary remedy.

Mandamus is a drastic remedy that 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). Courts grant mandamus only when the petitioner

shows that (1) he has “no other adequate means to attain” the requested relief, (2) he has a

“clear and indisputable” right to that relief, and (3) issuance of the writ would be

“appropriate under the circumstances,” In re Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 – including

whether, “at the discretion of the [] court,” “equitable principles” and “the interest of

justice” favor issuing a writ, United States ex rel. Rahman v. Oncology Assocs., P.C., 198

F.3d 502, 511 (4th Cir. 1999).

The prefiling injunction issued against Clinton enjoined him, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A, from filing additional “complaints” or “petitions” in the district court without

either full payment of the relevant filing fees or an affidavit from an attorney attesting that

the filing had a “good-faith basis for venue” there. Am. Order, In Re: Pro Se Litigant

Gregory K. Clinton, 1:22-mc-00049-TSK, ECF No. 3 (N.D.W. Va. Dec. 14, 2022). But

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1111 Doc: 21 Filed: 07/30/2026 Pg: 3 of 3

Clinton’s motion for compassionate release was not a new complaint or petition and had

no associated filing fee. Moreover, while § 1915A – the authority under which the

injunction was entered – applies to “civil action[s],” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) (emphasis

added), Clinton’s compassionate release motion was filed in his closed criminal case. By

its plain terms, the prefiling injunction did not bar the filing of his motion.

But Clinton has not shown that the equities and interests of justice favor the

extraordinary remedy of mandamus relief. First, there is Clinton’s years-long abuse of the

court system, which included frivolous lawsuits and veiled threats against the district court

judge, prosecutors, and court employees. Given that conduct, Clinton does not come to us

with “clean hands.” See United States ex rel. Turner v. Fisher, 222 U.S. 204, 209 (1911).

Second, the district court has stated that it reviewed Clinton’s motion, found it without

merit, and would deny it if filed. Under these circumstances, taken together, we cannot

say that granting Clinton’s petition would “effect right and justice.” Oncology Assocs.,

198 F.3d at 511.

For the foregoing reasons, we deny Clinton’s petition for a writ of mandamus.

PETITION DENIED