In Re: Floyd v. ( 2000 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-1221
In Re: BILLY DARRYL FLOYD; In Re: ARLIE LAWSON
RUSHING,
Petitioners.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (MISC-00-7-1)
Submitted: July 27, 2000 Decided: August 2, 2000
Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Billy Darryl Floyd, Arlie Lawson Rushing, Petitioners Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Billy Darryl Floyd and Arlie Lawson Rushing petition this
court for a writ of mandamus. They ask that we order the district
court to release certified copies of a subpoena to testify before
a grand jury and an order to show cause for failure to honor the
subpoena, both documents sealed by order of the court.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary
circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394,
402 (1976). To obtain mandamus relief, a petitioner bears the
burden of showing that his right to the relief sought is plain and
indisputable, that respondent has a clear duty to perform the re-
quested act, and that petitioner has no other avenues of relief.
See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.
1988).
Floyd and Rushing have failed to sustain this burden by
showing their clear entitlement to the sealed documents. There-
fore, we deny their motion for judicial notice and their request
for a writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-
rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITION DENIED
2