Case ID: f-appx_17/html/0095-01.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 Jerome ADDISON, Petitioner.
    No. 01-6890.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 9, 2001.
    Decided Aug. 17, 2001.
    Jerome Addison, Petitioner pro se.
    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Jerome Addison has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in this court seeking the district court to rule on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2000). Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). Mandamus relief is only available when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted, In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987), and may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Catawba Indian Tribe, 973 F.2d 1133, 1135 (4th Cir.1992). 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). Addison has failed to make such a showing and we thus deny the petition. We also deny Addison’s motion “for emergency relief'’ in which he seeks release on personal recognizance under Fed.R.App.P. 23(b)(3).

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.