In re CLARENCE HICKS, JR – Do It For The Caselaw

Holding: The court dismissed the petition in part as moot and denied the remainder because the petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear right to mandamus relief.
Standard: extraordinary remedy
Vote: Per Curiam opinion dismissing in part and denying in part.
Practical effect: The decision clarifies that mandamus is unavailable to challenge procedural delays that have already been resolved by the district court and reinforces the high threshold required to obtain such an extraordinary remedy.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed in part and denied in part a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Clarence Hicks, Jr. The court found the request to compel a ruling moot and determined that mandamus relief was not available to lift a grant of indefinite leave to reply.

Background

Clarence Hicks, Jr., proceeding pro se, petitioned for a writ of mandamus to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. He sought an order directing the United States District Court for the District of Maryland to rule on his motion to compel and requested that the appellate court lift the district court’s grant to Defendants of indefinite leave to reply.

The court’s reasoning

The court reviewed the district court’s docket and found that the motion to compel had been denied on May first, two thousand and twenty-six, rendering that portion of the petition moot. Regarding the remainder of the petition, the court noted that mandamus relief is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary circumstances. The court cited that such 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 desired. The court further stated that mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. Consequently, the court found Hicks was not entitled to the relief sought regarding the indefinite leave to reply.

Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal.

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

What it means going forward

The decision clarifies that mandamus is unavailable to challenge procedural delays that have already been resolved by the district court and reinforces the high threshold required to obtain such an extraordinary remedy.