In re: Headspeth v. ( 2000 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6831
In Re: AARON HEADSPETH,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-99-485-5)
Submitted: November 22, 2000 Decided: December 19, 2000
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aaron Headspeth, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Aaron Headspeth has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus
from this Court. He asks the Court to direct the district court to
expedite its review of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition.
Subsequent to Headspeth’s filing in this Court, however, a magis-
trate judge issued a report and recommendation regarding Heads-
peth’s § 2241 petition. As it appears that the case is currently
progressing, intervention by this court is not warranted.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary
circumstances. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct., 426 U.S. 394,
402 (1976). Mandamus relief is only available when there are no
other means by which the relief sought could be granted. See In re
Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). The party seeking
mandamus relief carries the heavy burden of showing that he has no
other adequate means to attain the relief he desires and that his
entitlement to such relief is clear and indisputable. Allied Chem.
Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980). Headspeth has not
made such a showing. Accordingly, we deny Headspeth’s petition for
mandamus relief. 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