David Hill v. WILLIAM B. TRAXLER, JR., Chief Judge for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7193
DAVID HILL,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM B. TRAXLER, JR., Chief Judge for the Fourth Circuit
Court of Appeals; PAUL V. NIEMEYER, Circuit Court Judge;
JAMES MICHAEL, Circuit Court Judge; WIDENER, Circuit Court
Judge; CLAUDE M. HILTON, District Court Judge assigned to
Alexandria; T. S. ELLIS, III, District Court Judge assigned
to Alexandria,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:15-cv-00137-RAJ-TEM)
Submitted: December 15, 2015 Decided: December 28, 2015
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Hill, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Dismissed by Supreme Court, November 28, 2016

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
David Hill appeals the district court’s order dismissing
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2012) his complaint filed pursuant
to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the court’s subsequent order
denying Hill’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend
that judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. See Hill v. Traxler, No. 2:15-cv-00137-
RAJ-TEM (E.D. Va. May 11, 2015 & July 15, 2015).
In conjunction with this appeal, Hill has filed a petition
for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order directing the district
court to act on Hill’s application to proceed in forma pauperis
(IFP). Given its dismissal of the action, the district court
declined to act on the IFP application, instead declaring it
moot.
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). Hill does not identify any extraordinary reason to
compel the district court to act on the IFP application, and we

-- 2 of 3 --

3
discern no basis in the record for granting Hill the relief he
seeks. Accordingly, we deny the pending mandamus petition. 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.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --