In Re: Gantt-El v. ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-1648
    In Re: GEORGE W. GANTT-EL,
    Petitioner.
    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.       (1:09-cv-00040-UA-DPD)
    Submitted:   November 19, 2009              Decided:   December 1, 2009
    Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    George W. Gantt-El, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    George W. Gantt-El petitions for a writ of mandamus
    seeking an order directing the district court to stop denying
    him    access    to    court    in    his    habeas        corpus      proceeding.         We
    conclude that Gantt-El is not entitled to mandamus relief.
    Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner
    has a clear right to the relief sought.                        In re First Fed. Sav. &
    Loan    Ass’n,    
    860 F.2d 135
    ,      138     (4th       Cir.    1988).       Further,
    mandamus    is    a     drastic       remedy       and    should       only    be   used   in
    extraordinary circumstances.                Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,
    
    426 U.S. 394
    , 402 (1976); In re Beard, 
    811 F.2d 818
    , 826 (4th
    Cir.    1987).        Mandamus       may    not    be     used    as   a   substitute      for
    appeal.    In re United Steelworkers, 
    595 F.2d 958
    , 960 (4th Cir.
    1979).
    The relief sought by Gantt-El is not available by way
    of mandamus.       Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in
    forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.                                  We
    deny Gantt-El’s motion for a certificate of appealability as
    unnecessary      and     deny     his      motion        for   judicial       notice.      We
    dispense    with       oral     argument          because        the   facts    and     legal
    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    PETITION DENIED
    2