Case ID: f-appx_91/html/0270-01.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: Alfred F. WORLEY, Petitioner.
    No. 03-7385.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 14, 2004.
    Decided March 23, 2004.
    Alfred F. Worley, Petitioner pro se.
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
    Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Alfred F. Worley has filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking this court to dismiss the state criminal charges pursuant to which he is incarcerated and to grant any other appropriate relief. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for the Northern District of California, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). Mandamus relief is available only 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). Worley has not made such a showing. Accordingly, we deny Worley’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny his motion to expedite, and dismiss his petition for a 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 DISMISSED