In re: Berry v. , 53 F. App'x 709 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7499
In Re: JAMES WILLIAM BERRY, SR.,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(CA-01-873, CA-00-604, CA-02-856)
Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: January 6, 2003
Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James William Berry, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
James William Berry, Sr., filed a petition for a writ of
mandamus alleging violations of his rights in relation to several
civil rights actions and his habeas corpus action. He requests
this court to assume jurisdiction over his cases, to order an
investigation, and to correct the alleged errors.
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 right to such relief is “clear and
indisputable.” Allied Chemical Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33,
35 (1980). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal.
See In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979).
Because Berry has other means by which to challenge the
district court’s rulings and the alleged violations of his rights,
mandamus relief is not available. See In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818,
126 (4th Cir. 1987). To the extent that Berry alleges an undue
delay by the district court in acting in his habeas corpus action,
we find no undue delay. Accordingly, although we grant leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, 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