In re: Harvey v. , 81 F. App'x 792 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6946
In Re: BOBBY HARVEY,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-01-160)
Submitted: July 28, 2003 Decided: December 3, 2003
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bobby Harvey, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Bobby Harvey, a federal prisoner, seeks a writ of mandamus
from this Court. For the reasons that follow, we find that such
relief is unavailable.
Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a
clear right to the relief sought. See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan
Ass’n, 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). It is
available only where there are no other means by which the relief
sought could be granted. See Allied Chem. 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).
The relief sought by Harvey is not available by way of
mandamus. In particular, Harvey attempts to use mandamus as a
substitute for appeal, which he cannot do. For the same reason, he
cannot demonstrate that mandamus is the only adequate remedy
available to him. 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