Case Name: In re Ernest Lee COLEY, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-12-10
Citations: 22 F. App'x 254
Docket Number: No. 01-7318
Parties: In re Ernest Lee COLEY, Petitioner.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 22
Pages: 254–254

Head Matter:
In re Ernest Lee COLEY, Petitioner.
No. 01-7318.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 29, 2001.
Decided Dec. 10, 2001.
Ernest Lee Coley, petitioner pro se.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Ernest Lee Coley has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus from this court seeking to compel Respondents to conduct a parole revocation hearing based on a parole violation warrant issued against him by the District of Columbia Parole Board, and to review the detainer currently lodged against him. 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 reliéf 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).
Coley has not made such a showing. Accordingly, we deny Coley's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, his petition for mandamus relief, and his motion to compel. 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.