In Re: O'Brien v.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-1613
In Re: EDWARD MICHAEL O’BRIEN,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-00-1817)
Submitted: August 20, 2001 Decided: September 10, 2001
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edward Michael O’Brien, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Edward Michael O’Brien has filed a petition for a writ of
mandamus seeking an order from this court directing the district
court to act upon his civil action. Mandamus is a drastic remedy
to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United
States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Mandamus relief 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), 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 desires” and
that his right to such relief is “clear and indisputable.” Allied
Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980). O’Brien has
not made such a showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion to pro-
ceed in forma pauperis and deny mandamus relief. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-
ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2