USCA4 Appeal: 25-1160 Doc: 14 Filed: 04/29/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1160

In re: MITCHELL DANYELL BANKS, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. (1:21-cr-00344-WO-1; 1:25-cv-00011-WO- LPA)

Submitted: April 24, 2025 Decided: April 29, 2025

Before RICHARDSON and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mitchell Danyell Banks, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1160 Doc: 14 Filed: 04/29/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Mitchell Danyell Banks petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed acting on his “Motion to Dismiss Indictment” (“Motion”). He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act, and he complains that the district court denied him evidence that was presented to the grand jury.

Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court recently construed the Motion as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion; provided Banks with the proper form, accompanying instructions for filing a § 2255 motion, and notice required by Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375 (2003); and dismissed the action without prejudice. Thus, to the extent Banks asks us to direct the district court to decide the Motion, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. To the extent that Banks assigns error to the district court’s refusal to provide him with evidence presented to the grand jury, mandamus may not be used as an alternative to appeal. See In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). Moreover, Banks has not established a clear right to the “extraordinary” relief he seeks and that he “has no other adequate means to attain the relief [he] desires.” In re Murphy-Brown, LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018) (cleaned up).

We therefore deny the mandamus petition. 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