In Re: Rochester v. , 235 F. App'x 82 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6701
IN RE: JULIAN EDWARD ROCHESTER,
Petitioner.
On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus.
Submitted: June 20, 2007 Decided: July 30, 2007
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Julian Edward Rochester, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Julian E. Rochester petitions this court for a writ of
mandamus. He seeks to appeal the district court’s refusal, in
accordance with a prefiling injunction, to process a petition for
writ of mandamus that Rochester attempted to file in that court.
Rochester also appears to seek an order compelling the South
Carolina state courts to hear a postconviction review petition and
to set aside two state court judgments. Mandamus is a drastic
remedy and should be used only in extraordinary situations.
Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); 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). Rochester has
failed to make the requisite showing. We accordingly deny the
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the
mandamus petition. 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.
DISMISSED
- 2 -