Case ID: f-appx_23/html/0160-01.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 Terry W. STEWART, Petitioner.
    No. 01-4719.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 14, 2001.
    Decided Jan. 2, 2002.
    Terry W. Stewart, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Terry W. Stewart has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking that this court compel the district court judge in his case to recuse himself on account of bias. 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).

Stewart has not made such a showing. Accordingly, we deny Stewart’s petition for mandamus relief. 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.