In Re: Maechel Patterson


                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 20-1444



                 On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:12-hc-02063-D)

Submitted: September 30, 2020                                 Decided: October 16, 2020

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Maechel Shawn Patterson, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

       Maechel S. Patterson petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order from this

court directing the district court to vacate its 2018 order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)

motion for reconsideration of the court’s 2012 order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition.

Patterson also seeks an order directing the district court to liberally construe the § 2254

petition as an emergency motion to reduce his sentence to time served and to order his

custodian to release him from prison due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We conclude that

Patterson 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,


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. 

Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795


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

503 F.3d 351

, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). This court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus

relief against state officials, Gurley v. Superior Ct. of Mecklenburg Cnty., 

411 F.2d 586


587 (4th Cir. 1969) (per curiam), and does not have jurisdiction to review final state court

orders, D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 

460 U.S. 462

, 482 (1983).

       The relief sought by Patterson is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly,

we deny the petition for 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.

                                                                       PETITION DENIED


Share Review:
Yes it is. Based on the user review published on, it is strongly advised to avoid In Re: Maechel Patterson in any dealing and transaction.
Not really. In spite of the review published here, there has been no response from In Re: Maechel Patterson. Lack of accountability is a major factor in determining trust.
Because unlike, other websites get paid to remove negative reviews and replace them with fake positive ones.
In Re: Maechel Patterson is rated 1 out of 5 based on the complaints submitted by our users and is marked as POOR.
Never trust websites which offer a shady ‘advocacy package’ to businesses. Search for relevant reviews on Ripoff Report and Pissed Consumer to see more unbiased complaints.
The above complaints and comments against In Re: Maechel Patterson were submitted by user(s) and have been published as-is. does not edit, alter or remove content published by it’s users. There’s no amount of money a business can pay to manipulate their complaints and will NOT entertain any request to remove the complaint on In Re: Maechel Patterson at any cost whatsoever.