In re: Ronald Coulter

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1823
In Re: RONALD COULTER,
Petitioner.
On Petitions for Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition.
(0:08-cv-02762-PMD)
Submitted: November 28, 2011 Decided: December 1, 2011
Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald Coulter, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Coulter petitions for a writ of mandamus and a
writ of prohibition seeking to vacate the district court’s order
granting summary judgment for Respondent on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(2006) petition and to compel the district court to review his
claims under the proper standard. We conclude that Coulter is
not entitled to relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used
only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. 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). Likewise, “a writ of prohibition is a
drastic and extraordinary remedy which should be granted only
when the petitioner has shown his right to the writ to be clear
and undisputable and that the actions of the court were a clear
abuse of discretion.” In re Vargas, 723 F.2d 1461, 1468 (10th
Cir. 1983). Neither a writ of mandamus nor a writ of
prohibition may be used as a substitute for appeal. Id.
(prohibition); In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353
(4th Cir. 2007) (mandamus).
The relief sought by Coulter is not available by way
of mandamus or prohibition. Accordingly, although we grant

-- 2 of 3 --

3
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny Coulter’s petitions.
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.
PETITIONS DENIED

-- 3 of 3 --