Case Name: In re: Anthony WILLIAMS, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-28
Citations: 358 F. App'x 429
Docket Number: No. 09-2204
Parties: In re: Anthony WILLIAMS, Petitioner.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 358
Pages: 429–429

Head Matter:
In re: Anthony WILLIAMS, Petitioner.
No. 09-2204.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 17, 2009.
Decided: Dec. 28, 2009.
Anthony Williams, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Williams petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order requiring the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) proceedings and to appoint counsel. We conclude that Williams is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used 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). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.1979).
The relief sought by Williams is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, 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.