In re: Richard Allen Patterson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1938
In re: RICHARD ALLEN PATTERSON,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. (2:17-cr-00114-RAJ-DEM-1)
Submitted: November 12, 2024 Decided: December 4, 2024
Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard Allen Patterson, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Richard Allen Patterson petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing
the district court to expedite ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We conclude that
Patterson 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). In addition, mandamus may not be used as a substitute for
appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
Because the district court dismissed Patterson’s § 2255 motion before he petitioned
for a writ of mandamus, United States v. Patterson, No. 2:17-cr-00114-RAJ-DEM-1 (E.D.
Va. Jan. 18, 2024) (PACER No. 260), Patterson has received the relief he seeks in his
mandamus petition. 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 --