In re: Willie Johnson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-2177
In re: WILLIE JOHNSON,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. (9:18-cv-03028-RMG)
Submitted: May 15, 2025 Decided: May 19, 2025
Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Willie Johnson, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Willie Johnson, a South Carolina prisoner, petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking
an order (a) enforcing the district court’s April 29, 2019 order, which purportedly awarded
Johnson $27.5 million in damages; (b) invalidating the district court’s April 2, 2021, order
granting Defendants summary judgment in Johnson’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action; and
(c) compelling Johnson’s immediate release from prison. We conclude that Johnson 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).
First, Johnson’s request for enforcement of a damages award lacks record support.
That is, while Johnson purports that the district court’s April 29, 2019, order awarded him
damages, we observe that this order simply permitted Johnson to proceed in forma pauperis
and allowed the matter to continue on Johnson’s proposed second amended complaint. See
Johnson v. Stirling, No. 9:18-cv-03028-RMG (D.S.C. PACER No. 35). Next, as to
Johnson’s request that we invalidate the district court’s order granting Defendants
summary judgment, mandamus is not a substitute for appeal, In re Lockheed Martin Corp.,
503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007), and this court has already affirmed the district court’s
orders in this regard, see Johnson v. Stirling, Nos. 19-6657/7791, 2021 WL 5563933 (4th

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Cir. Nov. 29, 2021). Finally, to the extent that Johnson asks us to direct his immediate
release from prison, he fails to establish a clear right to such relief. See In re Murphy-
Brown, 907 F.3d at 795.
Because none of the relief sought by Johnson is available by way of mandamus, we
deny the petition for writ of mandamus, as amended. 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

-- 3 of 3 --