Case Name: In re Anthony Eugene BROOKS, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-22
Citations: 424 F. App'x 238
Docket Number: No. 11-1155
Parties: In re Anthony Eugene BROOKS, Petitioner.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 424
Pages: 238–238

Head Matter:
In re Anthony Eugene BROOKS, Petitioner.
No. 11-1155.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 21, 2011.
Decided: April 22, 2011.
Anthony Eugene Brooks, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Eugene Brooks petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing his immediate release or an order for "the Government to show cause why an evidentiary hearing should not be held immediately." We conclude that Brooks is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. 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 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). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
The relief sought by Brooks 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.