In Re: Kleinsmith v. ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2349
In Re: PHILIP M. KLEINSMITH,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Submitted: December 16, 2004 Decided: December 20, 2004
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Philip M. Kleinsmith, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Philip M. Kleinsmith petitions for writ of mandamus. He
seeks an order enjoining the district court from requiring pro bono
service as a condition of membership in the court’s Bar.
Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has
a clear right to the relief sought. See In re First Fed. Sav. &
Loan Assn., 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus
is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary
circumstances. See 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. See In re
United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979).
The relief sought by Kleinsmith 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 -