Case Name: In Re: Harvey P. SHORT, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-11-08
Citations: 400 F. App'x 756
Docket Number: No. 10-1657
Parties: In Re: Harvey P. SHORT, Petitioner.
Judges: Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 400
Pages: 756–757

Head Matter:
In Re: Harvey P. SHORT, Petitioner.
No. 10-1657.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 29, 2010.
Decided: Nov. 8, 2010.
Harvey P. Short, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Haiwey P. Short petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order to compel the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration and an Assistant United States Attorney in West Virginia to make back payments of Social Security benefits to which Short claims he is entitled. We conclude that Short is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary cir cumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir.2003). Further, mandamus relief may be obtained only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and there is no other available remedy. In re Braxton, 258 F.3d 250, 261 (4th Cir.2001); In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.1988).
Because Short had another available remedy, and has availed himself of that remedy by filing an action currently pending in federal district court, relief 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.