In re: Jane Doe

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: December 22, 2022
• Docket: 22-1934
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1934 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1934

In re: JANE DOE,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:22-cv-00947-PTG-JFA)

Submitted: December 20, 2022 Decided: December 22, 2022

Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jane Doe, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1934 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Jane Doe petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district

court to grant her in forma pauperis status, leave to proceed under a pseudonym and under

seal, leave to file electronically, leave to exceed page number requirements, and a

temporary restraining order. We conclude that Doe is not entitled to mandamus relief.

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 [she] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (cleaned up).

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 Doe is not available by way of

mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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