Case ID: f-appx_332/html/0111-01.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 Henry Earl MILLER, Petitioner.
    No. 09-1739.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 20, 2009.
    Decided: Aug. 26, 2009.
    Henry Earl Miller, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Henry Earl Miller has filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the district court’s recharacterization of a letter as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2006) motion. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances, when “the petitioner has no other adequate means to obtain relief to which there is a clear and indisputable right.” In re Blackwater Sec. Consulting, L.L.C., 460 F.3d 576, 592 (4th Cir.2006) (internal quotations and citation omitted), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1260, 127 S.Ct. 1381, 167 L.Ed.2d 174 (2007). “Courts are extremely reluctant to grant a writ of mandamus.” In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir.1987). For the reasons stated by this court in the denial of Miller’s prior mandamus petition, In re Miller, 256 Fed.Appx. 604 (4th Cir.2007) (No. 09-1739), he is not eligible for mandamus relief. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We further deny Miller’s motion to recuse. 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.