Case Name: In re Edward Michael O'BRIEN, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-09-10
Citations: 18 F. App'x 154
Docket Number: No. 01-1613
Parties: In re Edward Michael O’BRIEN, Petitioner.
Judges: Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 18
Pages: 154–155

Head Matter:
In re Edward Michael O’BRIEN, Petitioner.
No. 01-1613.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 20, 2001.
Decided Sept. 10, 2001.
Edward Michael O’Brien, pro se.
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Edward Michael O'Brien has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order from this court directing the district court to act upon his civil action. 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 relief 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 United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.1979). 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 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). O'Brien has not made such a showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion to proceed in forma pauperis and 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.