Case ID: f-appx_18/html/0154-01.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 Edward Michael O’BRIEN, Petitioner.
    No. 01-1613.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 20, 2001.
    Decided Sept. 10, 2001.
    Edward Michael O’Brien, pro se.
    Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Edward Michael O’Brien has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order from this court directing the district court to act upon his civil action. 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 United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.1979). 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 right 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). O’Brien has not made such a showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion to proceed in forma pauperis and deny 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.