`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
`
`
`No. 24-1938
`
`
`In re: RICHARD ALLEN PATTERSON,
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern
`District of Virginia, at Norfolk. (2:17-cr-00114-RAJ-DEM-1)
`
`
`
`
`Submitted: November 12, 2024
`
`
`
`Decided: December 4, 2024
`
`
`
`Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
`
`
`Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
`
`
`Richard Allen Patterson, Petitioner Pro Se.
`
`
`Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PER CURIAM:
`
`
`Richard Allen Patterson petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing
`
`the district court to expedite ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We conclude that
`
`Patterson 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). In addition, mandamus may not be used as a substitute for
`
`appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
`
`Because the district court dismissed Patterson’s § 2255 motion before he petitioned
`
`for a writ of mandamus, United States v. Patterson, No. 2:17-cr-00114-RAJ-DEM-1 (E.D.
`
`Va. Jan. 18, 2024) (PACER No. 260), Patterson has received the relief he seeks in his
`
`mandamus petition. 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
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
