Case ID: f-appx_37/html/0619-02.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 Carl WASHINGTON, Petitioner.
    No. 02-6290.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted May 30, 2002.
    Decided June 6, 2002.
    
      Carl Washington, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Carl Washington petitions the court for a writ of mandamus, 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (1994), directing the district court to order discovery in a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001) proceeding. 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). Consequently, the party seeking mandamus relief carries the heavy burden of showing 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) (citations omitted). Mandamus cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal. In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.1979). Washington has not met the applicable burden. Accordingly, we 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.