Case ID: f-appx_46/html/0182-01.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 Bobby HAZEL, Petitioner.
    No. 02-7188.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 9, 2002.
    Decided Sept. 19, 2002.
    Bobby Hazel, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Bobby Hazel has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to have this court direct the respondents to review their denial of Hazel’s prior petition for a writ of mandamus. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary situations. 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). Mandamus relief is only available when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted, see In re Beard, 811 F.2d at 826, and may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.1979). Hazel has not shown he has a clear right to the relief sought.

Accordingly, although we grant Hazel’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny his 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.