In Re: Scott v.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7078
In re: JOHN T. SCOTT,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-01-978-1)
Submitted: October 8, 2002 Decided: October 30, 2002
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John T. Scott, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
John T. Scott has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus
seeking to have this court direct officials of the State of North
Carolina “to follow their own rules and regulations.” Scott further
seeks to have this court direct the district court to file his
legal documents and communicate with him.
First, we lack jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against
state officials. See Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg
County, 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969). Second, 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); In re Beard, 811 F.2d
818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Mandamus relief is only available when
there are no other means by which the relief sought could be
granted, see In re Beard, 811 F.2d at 826, and may not be used as
a substitute for appeal. In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958,
960 (4th Cir. 1979). Scott has not shown that he lacks other
adequate means to attain the relief he desires.
Accordingly, although we grant Scott’s motion to proceed in
forma pauperis, we deny his petition for mandamus relief. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
2
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3