Case ID: br_293/html/0897-01.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 Georgia A. GREEN, Petitioner.
    No. 03-1356.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 24, 2003.
    Decided May 2, 2003.
    Georgia A. Green, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
   Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Georgia A. Green filed a petition for a writ of mandamus requesting this court to compel the bankruptcy court judge to protect her property rights. Mandamus is a drastic remedy, which will only be granted in extraordinary circumstances. See In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987) (citing Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976)). The party seeking mandamus relief has the heavy burden of showing that he has no other adequate avenues of relief and that his right to the relief sought 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); In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.1988). We find that Green has not met her burden of proving that mandamus is the proper remedy in this situation. Rather, Green has an adequate remedy in that she could appeal from the bankruptcy court’s orders. See In re United Steelworkers of Am., 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.1979) (mandamus may not be used as substitute for appeal).

Accordingly, while we grant Green’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny her 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 DENIED.