Case ID: f-appx_518/html/0234-01.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 Harry NIE, Petitioner.
    No. 13-1105.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 18, 2013.
    Decided: April 22, 2013.
    Harry Nie, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
   Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Harry Nie petitions for a writ of mandamus, requesting that this court examine the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. We have already done so. See Nie v. Clarke, No. 12-7644, 501 Fed.Appx. 231, 2012 WL 6604913 (4th Cir. Dec. 19, 2012) (per curiam). We decline Nie’s invitation to revisit the district court’s ruling under the guise of entertaining a writ of mandamus, given that 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); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir.2003). Indeed, mandamus relief is available only when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted, and it should not be used as a substitute for appeal. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d at 517.

Accordingly, although we grant Nie leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny his petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED.