Case Name: In re John T. SCOTT, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-10-30
Citations: 49 F. App'x 454
Docket Number: No. 02-7078
Parties: In re John T. SCOTT, Petitioner.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 49
Pages: 454–455

Head Matter:
In re John T. SCOTT, Petitioner.
No. 02-7078.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 8, 2002.
Decided Oct. 30, 2002.
John T. Scott, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
John T. Scott has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to have this court direct officials of the State of North Carolina "to follow their own rules and regulations." Scott further seeks to have this court direct the district court to file his legal documents and communicate with him.
First, we lack jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials. See Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir.1969). Second, 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 situations. 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 relief is only available when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted, see In re Beard, 811 F.2d at 826, and may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.1979). Scott has not shown that he lacks other adequate means to attain the relief he desires.
Accordingly, although we grant Scott's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny his petition for 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.