In re: Goodwyn v. ( 2000 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7023
In Re: ORRANDY GOODWYN,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-00-326-5)
Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 8, 2000
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Orrandy Goodwyn, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Orrandy Goodwyn petitions this court for a writ of mandamus,
asking us to overrule an order of the district court that Goodwyn
must obtain authorization from this court before the district court
considers Goodwyn’s successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000)
motion. Additionally, Goodwyn seeks an order directing the dis-
trict court to issue a certificate of appealability. We deny the
petition.
A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in
extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,
426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Mandamus relief is available only when
there are no other means by which the relief sought could be
granted. In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). It may
not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re United Steelworkers,
595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). The party seeking relief
carries the heavy burden of showing that his right to such relief
is “clear and indisputable.” Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc.,
449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980). Goodwyn has not made such a showing.
Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss
the mandamus petition. We deny the motion for correction of the
record and 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 DISMISSED
2