Case ID: f-appx_82/html/0302-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re: William SHORTER, Jr., Petitioner.
    No. 03-7274.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 19, 2003.
    Decided Dec. 4, 2003.
    William Shorter, Jr., Petitioner pro se.
    Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

William Shorter, Jr., filed a petition for a writ of mandamus requesting this court to order his immediate release from incarceration. He has also filed an amendment to that petition. Mandamus is a drastic remedy, which will only be granted in extraordinary circumstances. In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987) (citing Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976)). The party seeking mandamus relief has the heavy burden of showing that he has no other adequate avenue of relief and that his right to the relief sought 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) (citations omitted); In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.1988). Because Shorter has other means of challenging the validity of his conviction, we find that he has not met this burden.

Accordingly, while we grant Shorter’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny his petition and amended petition for a writ of mandamus. 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