Case Name: In re: James G. BLAKELY, a/k/a Jimmy G. Blakely, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-09-13
Citations: 446 F. App'x 616
Docket Number: No. 11-1529
Parties: In re: James G. BLAKELY, a/k/a Jimmy G. Blakely, Petitioner.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 446
Pages: 616–616

Head Matter:
In re: James G. BLAKELY, a/k/a Jimmy G. Blakely, Petitioner.
No. 11-1529.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 24, 2011.
Decided: Sept. 13, 2011.
James G. Blakely, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James G. Blakely petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the district court to provide him with copies of documents filed in his prior 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) proceedings. We conclude that Blakely 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 and indisputable right to the relief sought." In re Braxton, 258 F.3d 250, 261 (4th Cir.2001).
Blakely has failed to demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought. 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.