Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: Jarvis V., 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Douglas Jarvis's petition for a writ of mandamus. Jarvis had sought an order directing the district court to grant relief on his motion to correct a clerical error, which the district court had previously denied. The appellate court determined that Jarvis was not entitled to mandamus relief because mandamus is a drastic remedy only used in extraordinary circumstances, and the relief sought was not available through mandamus, which cannot be used as a substitute for appeal. Therefore, the court denied Jarvis's petition.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2007-11-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-7386

    Original Title

    In Re: Jarvis v., 4th Cir. (2007)

    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 Douglas Jarvis's petition for a writ of mandamus. Jarvis had sought an order directing the district court to grant relief on his motion to correct a clerical error, which the district court had previously denied. The appellate court determined that Jarvis was not entitled to mandamus relief because mandamus is a drastic remedy only used in extraordinary circumstances, and the relief sought was not available through mandamus, which cannot be used as a substitute for appeal. Therefore, the court denied Jarvis's petition.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    3 views2 pages

    In Re: Jarvis V., 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Douglas Jarvis's petition for a writ of mandamus. Jarvis had sought an order directing the district court to grant relief on his motion to correct a clerical error, which the district court had previously denied. The appellate court determined that Jarvis was not entitled to mandamus relief because mandamus is a drastic remedy only used in extraordinary circumstances, and the relief sought was not available through mandamus, which cannot be used as a substitute for appeal. Therefore, the court denied Jarvis's petition.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 07-7386

    In Re:

    DOUGLAS JARVIS,
    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

    Submitted:

    November 20, 2007

    (2:91-cr-00070-JAM)

    Decided:

    November 29, 2007

    Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Douglas Jarvis, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Douglas Jarvis petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking
    an order directing the district court to grant relief on his motion
    to correct a clerical error.
    the motion.

    The district court previously denied

    We conclude that Jarvis is not entitled to mandamus

    relief.
    Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has
    a clear right to the relief sought.

    In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan

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


    drastic

    remedy

    circumstances.

    and

    should

    only

    be

    Further, mandamus is a
    used

    in

    extraordinary

    Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394,

    402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987).
    Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal.

    In re United

    Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979).


    The relief sought by Jarvis is not available by way of
    mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma
    pauperis, 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 the court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.

    PETITION DENIED

    - 2 -

    You might also like