USCA4 Appeal: 24-1757 Doc: 6 Filed: 09/16/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1757

In re: DAVID HILL,

Petitioner.

On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. (1:01-cr-00191-CMH-1)

Submitted: September 12, 2024 Decided: September 16, 2024

Before THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Hill, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1757 Doc: 6 Filed: 09/16/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

David Hill petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district

court to grant Hill’s motions for relief from judgment in a civil action and for

reconsideration of the court’s order imposing a prefiling injunction (PFI) in his criminal

case. We conclude that Hill 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.,

(2004); In re Murphy-Brown,

LLC,

(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,

(alteration and internal

quotation marks omitted).

Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal, In re Lockheed Martin Corp.,

(4th Cir. 2007), and we previously affirmed the district court’s order

denying Hill’s motions, see United States v. Hill, No. 23-7052,

(4th Cir.

Apr. 2, 2024). To the extent that the instant petition also contains substantive challenges

to the PFI, we observe that Hill has already unsuccessfully challenged the PFI on appeal,

see United States v. Hill, No. 22-7439,

(4th Cir. May 31, 2023), and

thus his current challenges are not properly before us.

Because, at bottom, the relief sought by Hill is not available by way of mandamus,

we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1757 Doc: 6 Filed: 09/16/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

3