Case ID: f-appx_163/html/0229-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In Re: Philip M. KLEINSMITH, Petitioner.
    No. 05-1351.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 28, 2005.
    Decided Jan. 24, 2006.
    Philip M. Kleinsmith, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, and LUTTIG and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Philip M. Kleinsmith has filed an action in this court requesting that we “overrule [the district court’s] taking and thereby make Mr. Kleinsmith an attorney in good standing in the Maryland U.S. District Court.” The United States District Court for the District of Maryland declined to renew Kleinsmith’s admission to the bar of that court because he refused to agree to pro bono assignments in that district. We construe Kleinsmith’s filings as a request for mandamus relief and deny it.

Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987). 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 Kleinsmith is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny his request for mandamus relief. 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