Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: Demetrius Hill, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    0 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Demetrius Hill's petitions for a writ of mandamus. Hill had requested that the court award his attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act after a jury verdict in his favor, and to intervene in the district court conducting a new trial. The court determined that mandamus relief was not available, as it is a drastic remedy only for extraordinary circumstances where there is a clear right to relief. Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. Therefore, the court denied Hill's petitions for writ of mandamus and his motion for appointment of counsel.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-08-03 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-1084

    Original Title

    In re: Demetrius Hill, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Demetrius Hill's petitions for a writ of mandamus. Hill had requested that the court award his attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act after a jury verdict in his favor, and to intervene in the district court conducting a new trial. The court determined that mandamus relief was not available, as it is a drastic remedy only for extraordinary circumstances where there is a clear right to relief. Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. Therefore, the court denied Hill's petitions for writ of mandamus and his motion for appointment of counsel.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    0 views3 pages

    In Re: Demetrius Hill, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Demetrius Hill's petitions for a writ of mandamus. Hill had requested that the court award his attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act after a jury verdict in his favor, and to intervene in the district court conducting a new trial. The court determined that mandamus relief was not available, as it is a drastic remedy only for extraordinary circumstances where there is a clear right to relief. Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. Therefore, the court denied Hill's petitions for writ of mandamus and his motion for appointment of counsel.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 12-1084

    In re: DEMETRIUS HILL,


    Petitioner.

    On Petitions for Writ of Mandamus.

    Submitted:

    June 28, 2012

    (7:08-cv-00283-JCT-RSB)

    Decided:

    August 3, 2012

    Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Demetrius Hill, Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Demetrius Hill petitions for a writ of mandamus asking
    this court to award attorneys fees to his counsel under the
    Equal Access to Justice Act after a jury returned a verdict in
    Hills

    favor

    in

    his

    action

    filed

    pursuant

    to

    Bivens

    v.

    Six

    Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388


    (1971).

    He has filed a second petition for a writ of mandamus

    requesting this court to intervene and stop the district court


    from conducting a new trial.

    We conclude that Hill is not

    entitled to mandamus relief.


    Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used
    only

    in

    Dist.

    extraordinary

    Court,

    Moussaoui,
    mandamus

    426

    333

    U.S.

    F.3d

    relief

    is

    circumstances.
    394,

    509,

    402

    516-17

    available

    (1976);
    (4th

    only

    clear right to the relief sought.

    Kerr

    when

    v.

    United

    United

    Cir.

    2003).

    the

    States

    States

    v.

    Further,

    petitioner

    has

    In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan

    Assn, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).


    Mandamus
    appeal.

    may

    not

    be

    used

    as

    substitute

    for

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

    Cir. 2007).

    The relief sought by Hill is not available by way

    of mandamus.

    Accordingly, we deny the petitions for writ of

    mandamus.

    further

    counsel.
    legal

    We

    deny

    Hills

    motion

    for

    appointment

    of

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

    contentions

    are

    adequately
    2

    presented

    in

    the

    materials

    before

    the

    court

    and

    argument

    would

    not

    aid

    the

    decisional

    process.

    PETITIONS DENIED

    You might also like