In re: Harrison Lewis, Iii

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-1540
In re: HARRISON LEWIS, III,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:17-cr-00323-GJH-1)
Submitted: May 7, 2021 Decided: June 1, 2021
Before NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Harrison Lewis, III, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Harrison Lewis, III, petitions for a writ of mandamus, asking us to compel the
district court to take certain actions in his case. “[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 and citations 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)); see also In re Moore, 955 F.3d
384, 388 (4th Cir. 2020). 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 district court’s docket, and we
conclude that Lewis fails to show that he is entitled to the requested relief.
Accordingly, we deny Lewis’ petition for a writ of mandamus and his other pending
motions. 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 --