Case ID: f-appx_22/html/0299-01.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 Rafael C. MATOS, Petitioner.
    No. 01-7393.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 10, 2001.
    Decided Dec. 20, 2001.
    Rafael C. Matos, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Rafael Cornelio Matos brought this petition for writ of mandamus. He seeks an order from this court compelling the district court to rule in his favor in his petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994), which the district court dismissed without prejudice in November 2000. See Matos v. Reno, No. CA-00-746 (E.D.Va. Nov. 8, 2000).

Mandamus is the appropriate remedy only where there are no other means by which a petitioner may obtain the requested relief. 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). It may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.1979).

Because Matos had another remedy, namely an appeal, available to him, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. 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.