In re: Demetrius Hill

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1084
In re: DEMETRIUS HILL,
Petitioner.
On Petitions for Writ of Mandamus. (7:08-cv-00283-JCT-RSB)
Submitted: June 28, 2012 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Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Demetrius Hill petitions for a writ of mandamus asking
this court to award attorney’s fees to his counsel under the
Equal Access to Justice Act after a jury returned a verdict in
Hill’s 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 extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States
Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v.
Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further,
mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a
clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan
Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).
Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for
appeal. 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. We further deny Hill’s motion for appointment of
counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

-- 2 of 3 --

3
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITIONS DENIED

-- 3 of 3 --