Case Name: In Re: Charles PRICE, Jr., Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-08-04
Citations: 340 F. App'x 139
Docket Number: No. 09-1638
Parties: In Re: Charles PRICE, Jr., Petitioner.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 340
Pages: 139–140

Head Matter:
In Re: Charles PRICE, Jr., Petitioner.
No. 09-1638.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 30, 2009.
Decided: Aug. 4, 2009.
Charles Price, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Price, Jr., a Maryland inmate, petitions for a writ of mandamus compelling: (1) a Federal Reserve bank to act as a fiduciary for eleven million dollars; (2) the State of Maryland to compensate him for injuries he sustained while incarcerated at the Baltimore City Detention Center; and (3) officials with the Circuit Court for Baltimore City to grant him a speedy trial and reasonable bail.
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); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987). The party seeking mandamus relief bears 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. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 309, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 104 L.Ed.2d 318 (1989).
Price fails to show a clear and indisputable right to relief against the Federal Reserve bank and the Baltimore City Detention Center. Further, because this court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials, Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir.1969), the relief Price seeks against officials with the Circuit Court for Baltimore City is not available by way of mandamus.
Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for 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.