In re: Michael Rufus

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: May 10, 2023
• Docket: 23-1195
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1195 Doc: 14 Filed: 05/10/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1195

In re: MICHAEL ALONZA RUFUS, Individual and non-other person - see Dictionary Act,

Petitioner.

On Petitions for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. (1:22-cv-00977-PTG-IDD)

Submitted: April 6, 2023 Decided: May 10, 2023

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Alonza Rufus, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1195 Doc: 14 Filed: 05/10/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Alonza Rufus petitions for a writ of mandamus, asking this court to order

the district court to issue a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. “[M]andamus is

a drastic remedy that must be reserved for extraordinary situations.” In re Murphy-Brown,

LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Courts

provide mandamus relief only when (1) petitioner ‘ha[s] no other adequate means to attain

the relief [he] desires’; (2) petitioner has shown a ‘clear and indisputable’ right to the

requested relief; and (3) the court deems the writ ‘appropriate under the circumstances.’”

Id. (quoting Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004)). The writ of

mandamus is not a substitute for appeal after final judgment. Will v. United States, 389

U.S. 90, 97 (1967); In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).

We have reviewed the mandamus petition and amended mandamus petition, and we

conclude that Rufus fails to show that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we

deny the petitions. 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.

PETITIONS DENIED