In Re: Bast v.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-542
In Re: RICHARD L. BAST,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(CA-94-784-A, CA-95-531-A)
Submitted: June 21, 1996 Decided: July 11, 1996
Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard L. Bast, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Richard L. Bast has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus
requesting that the court correct or vacate a number of prior deci-
sions and recuse certain judges from hearing his appeals. Mandamus
is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances.
Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Manda-
mus relief is available only if there are no other means by which
the relief sought could be granted, In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 827
(4th Cir. 1987), and may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In
re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). The
party seeking mandamus relief carries the heavy burden of showing
that he has "no other adequate means to attain the relief he de-
sires" and that his right to such relief is "clear and indisput-
able." Allied Chem. Corp. v. Diaflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980)
(citations omitted).
We deny Bast's requests to correct or vacate prior decisions
because mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. We
also deny Bast's requests to recuse the judges because he fails to
allege an extrajudicial bias. See In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 827
(4th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, we deny mandamus relief. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
quately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2