In Re: Rippy v. , 310 F. App'x 569 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-2262
In Re: CHARLES A. RIPPY, JR.,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Writ of Prohibition.
Submitted: December 16, 2008 Decided: December 19, 2008
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles A. Rippy, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles A. Rippy, Jr., a North Carolina prisoner,
petitions for a writ of mandamus and a writ of prohibition. He
challenges his criminal conviction and seeks the appointment of
a new attorney and DNA testing. We deny the petition.
A writ of mandamus and a writ of prohibition are
drastic remedies to be used only in extraordinary circumstances.
See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976)
(writ of mandamus); In re Vargas, 723 F.2d 1461, 1468 (10th Cir.
1983) (writ of prohibition). Relief under these writs is only
available 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). The party seeking 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 Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449
U.S. 33, 35 (1980). Rippy has not made such a showing.
Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, we deny the 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.
PETITION DENIED
2