In Re: Williams v. , 358 F. App'x 429 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-2204
In Re: ANTHONY WILLIAMS,
Petitioner.
On Petitioner for Writ of Mandamus.
(3:07-cv-00422-GCM)
Submitted: December 17, 2009 Decided: December 28, 2009
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Williams, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Williams petitions for a writ of mandamus
seeking an order requiring the district court to hold an
evidentiary hearing in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) proceedings
and to appoint counsel. We conclude that Williams 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 Williams 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITION DENIED
2