In re: Brandon Pickens

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit February 5, 2024

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2281 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/05/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

No. 23-2281

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. (1:21-cv-00030-MR)

Submitted: January 30, 2024 Decided: February 5, 2024

Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brandon Michael Pickens, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-2281 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/05/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

Brandon Michael Pickens, a North Carolina inmate, petitions for a writ of

mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to allow Pickens to amend his

complaint in the underlying

42 U.S.C. § 1983

action and to appoint counsel to represent

Pickens. We conclude that Pickens 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,

(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).

By order entered on November 8, 2023, the district court denied Pickens’ most

recent motions to amend his complaint and for the appointment of counsel. See Pickens v.

Hendricks, No. 1:21-cv-00030-MR (W.D.N.C., PACER No. 190). Because mandamus

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

(4th Cir. 2007), the relief Pickens seeks is not available by way of mandamus.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for a 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.