In re: Micah D. Moreland

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1096
In re: MICAH D. MORELAND,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. (3:24-mc-00033-GMG)
Submitted: March 27, 2025 Decided: April 1, 2025
Before THACKER and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Micah D. Moreland, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Micah D. Moreland petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the
district court to file his submitted documents for litigation as a civil case rather than a
miscellaneous case. We conclude that Moreland is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary
circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); In re Murphy-Brown,
LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Further, mandamus relief is available only when
the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and “has no other adequate means to
attain the relief [he] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (alteration and internal
quotation marks omitted).
The relief sought by Moreland is not available by way of mandamus. Because the
relief Moreland seeks would “invade the broad discretion that is given to the district court
to manage its docket,” mandamus relief is not appropriate. In re Strickland, 87 F.4th 257,
261 (4th Cir. 2023) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, when the
district court enters a final order in the miscellaneous case, Moreland may file a notice of
appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007) (stating that
mandamus “may not be used as a substitute for appeal”). Accordingly, 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 this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

-- 2 of 2 --