Case ID: f-appx_53/html/0723-01.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 Andre Sylvester WATTS, Petitioner.
    No. 02-7714.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 11, 2002.
    Decided Jan. 8, 2003.
    Andre Sylvester Watts, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Andre S. Watts petitions for a writ of mandamus. Watts seeks an order compelling the United States Parole Commission to grant a parole hearing.

Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. 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). Moreover, jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against an agency of the United States lies with the district courts, not this court. 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (2000); Estate of Michael v. Lullo, 173 F.3d 503, 506 (4th Cir.1999).

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny without prejudice the petition for 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.