Case Name: In re Michael McEVILY, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-02-13
Citations: 55 F. App'x 712
Docket Number: No. 03-6043
Parties: In re Michael McEVILY, Petitioner.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 55
Pages: 712–712

Head Matter:
In re Michael McEVILY, Petitioner.
No. 03-6043.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 6, 2003.
Decided Feb. 13, 2003.
Michael McEvily, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Michael McEvily filed a petition seeking review of Va.Code Ann. § 18.2-104 (2002) under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (2000), and an injunction against future enforcement of the statute. McEvily asserts that the statute is ambiguous and therefore unconstitutional. We decline to exercise jurisdiction over McEvily's petition.
The All Writs Act vests all statutorily created federal courts, including this court, with authority to issue "all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions." See 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (2000) . Injunctive relief under the All Writs Act, however, is available "only in the most critical and exigent circumstances . if the legal rights at issue are indisputably clear." Brown v. Gilmore, 533 U.S. 1301, 1303, 122 S.Ct. 1, 150 L.Ed.2d 782 (2001) (Rehnquist, C.J., in chambers) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). We conclude that McEvily's petition does not satisfy this standard. Moreover, McEvily asserts that he has challenged the constitutionality of the statute in question in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) that is pending in the district court. Initial review of the statute in question and development of the record are appropriately conducted by the district court. If McEvily fails to obtain the relief he seeks in the district court, he may assert his claim on appeal to this court.
Accordingly, although we grant McEvily's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, we dismiss his petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal issues are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.