In re: MICHAEL ALONZA RUFUS, Individual and non-other person - see Dictionary Act

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-1195
In re: MICHAEL ALONZA RUFUS, Individual and non-other person - see
Dictionary Act,
Petitioner.
On Petitions for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. (1:22-cv-00977-PTG-IDD)
Submitted: April 6, 2023 Decided: May 10, 2023
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Alonza Rufus, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Michael Alonza Rufus petitions for a writ of mandamus, asking this court to order
the district court to issue a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. “[M]andamus is
a drastic remedy that must be reserved for extraordinary situations.” In re Murphy-Brown,
LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Courts
provide mandamus relief only when (1) petitioner ‘ha[s] no other adequate means to attain
the relief [he] desires’; (2) petitioner has shown a ‘clear and indisputable’ right to the
requested relief; and (3) the court deems the writ ‘appropriate under the circumstances.’”
Id. (quoting Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004)). The writ of
mandamus is not a substitute for appeal after final judgment. Will v. United States, 389
U.S. 90, 97 (1967); In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
We have reviewed the mandamus petition and amended mandamus petition, and we
conclude that Rufus fails to show that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we
deny the petitions. 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.
PETITIONS DENIED

-- 2 of 2 --