In re: Micah Moreland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 1, 2025
• Docket: 25-1096
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1096 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/01/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1096

In re: MICAH D. MORELAND,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. (3:24-mc-00033-GMG)

Submitted: March 27, 2025 Decided: April 1, 2025

Before THACKER and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Micah D. Moreland, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1096 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/01/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Micah D. Moreland petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the

district court to file his submitted documents for litigation as a civil case rather than a

miscellaneous case. We conclude that Moreland 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 [he] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (alteration and internal

quotation marks omitted).

The relief sought by Moreland is not available by way of mandamus. Because the

relief Moreland seeks would “invade the broad discretion that is given to the district court

to manage its docket,” mandamus relief is not appropriate. In re Strickland, 87 F.4th 257,

261 (4th Cir. 2023) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, when the

district court enters a final order in the miscellaneous case, Moreland may file a notice of

appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007) (stating that

mandamus “may not be used as a substitute for appeal”). 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