Case ID: f-appx_235/html/0082-02.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: Julian Edward ROCHESTER, Petitioner.
    No. 07-6701.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 20, 2007.
    Decided: July 30, 2007.
    Julian Edward Rochester, Petitioner Pro Se.
    
      Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Julian E. Rochester petitions this court for a writ of mandamus. He seeks to appeal the district court’s refusal, in accordance with a prefiling injunction, to process a petition for writ of mandamus that Rochester attempted to file in that court. Rochester also appears to seek an order compelling the South Carolina state courts to hear a postconviction review petition and to set aside two state court judgments. Mandamus is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary situations. 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). 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, 101 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980). Rochester has failed to make the requisite showing. We accordingly deny the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the mandamus petition. 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.

DISMISSED.