USCA4 Appeal: 23-2065 Doc: 9 Filed: 11/21/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-2065

In re: LINWOOD EARL DUFFIE,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. (5:20-ct-03229-FL)

Submitted: November 16, 2023 Decided: November 21, 2023

Before AGEE and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Linwood Earl Duffie, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-2065 Doc: 9 Filed: 11/21/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Linwood Earl Duffie petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing

the district court to allow Duffie to amend his complaint in the underlying

action and to liberally construe that complaint. Duffie has also filed a motion asking that

we issue a preliminary injunction ordering the United States Attorney General “to serve

his full civil and criminal investigation” into the North Carolina Legislature’s “conspir[acy]

to cause [the] habitual felon class to complete unlawful enhanced sentence[s] during [the]

. . . pandemic.” (ECF No. 7 at 1). We deny the requested relief.

As to the mandamus petition, mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be

used only in extraordinary circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct.,

(2004); In re Murphy-Brown, LLC,

(4th Cir. 2018). 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,

(cleaned

up). Further, mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin

Corp.,

(4th Cir. 2007). The relief that Duffie seeks is not available by

way of mandamus, and he otherwise fails to establish a clear right to the relief he seeks.

We therefore deny the mandamus petition.

Next, we conclude that Duffie’s motion for a preliminary injunction fails to satisfy

the stringent requirements necessary for the requested relief. See Miranda v. Garland,

, 358 (4th Cir. 2022) (“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish

that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the

absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-2065 Doc: 9 Filed: 11/21/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

injunction is in the public interest.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we

also deny the motion for a preliminary injunction.

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