In Re: Crusenberry v.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-8097
In Re: STANLEY WILSON CRUSENBERRY,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 7, 2002
Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stanley Wilson Crusenberry, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Stanley Wilson Crusenberry has filed a petition for a writ of
mandamus seeking to have this court reverse a state conviction.
Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear
right to the relief sought. 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 situations. 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
Catawba Indian Tribe, 973 F.2d 1133, 1135 (4th Cir. 1992). 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 entitlement to such relief is clear and indisputable.
Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980).
Crusenberry filed a petition under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West
1994 & Supp. 2001) in district court which the district court
denied because it was untimely filed under the applicable filing
limitations period. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d) (West 1994 & Supp.
2001). This Court dismissed Crusenberry’s appeal. Crusenberry v.
Angelone, No. 01-7229 (4th Cir. Sept. 28, 2001) (unpublished).
In this mandamus petition, Crusenberry has failed to show that
he has a clear right to the relief sought. Because Crusenberry
2
essentially seeks another appeal of the district court’s denial of
his § 2254 petition, we deny his petition for a writ of mandamus.
Although we grant Crusenberry leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3