Case Name: In re John Frank BOWEN, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-04-23
Citations: 11 F. App'x 133
Docket Number: No. 01-6313
Parties: In re John Frank BOWEN, Petitioner.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 11
Pages: 133–134

Head Matter:
In re John Frank BOWEN, Petitioner.
No. 01-6313.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 12, 2001.
Decided April 23, 2001.
John Frank Bowen, Petitioner pro se.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
John Frank Bowen petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus to compel the district court to permit him to amend his habeas corpus petition. We find that mandamus relief is not warranted. Mandamus is a drastic remedy, only to be granted in extraordinary circumstances. In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). The party seeking mandamus relief has 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). Mandamus is not a substitute for appeal. Id. Bowen may attack the district court's order denying his motion to amend by appealing the court's final order in his case. Therefore, because there are other adequate means to attain relief, Bowen's right to mandamus relief is not "clear and indisputable." See United States ex rel. Rahman v. Oncology Assoc. P.C., 198 F.3d 502, 511 (4th Cir.1999). Accordingly, we deny the petition. 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.