Court Opinion

ID: 1015109
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:27:28.793343+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:33.087944
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 04-2349

In Re:   PHILIP M. KLEINSMITH,

                                                         Petitioner.

                 On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Submitted:   December 16, 2004         Decided:    December 20, 2004

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Philip M. Kleinsmith, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

            Philip M. Kleinsmith petitions for writ of mandamus. He

seeks an order enjoining the district court from requiring pro bono

service as a condition of membership in the court’s Bar.

            Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has

a clear right to the relief sought.     See In re First Fed. Sav. &

Loan Assn., 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).     Further, mandamus

is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary

circumstances.    See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S.

394, 402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987).

Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal.       See In re

United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979).

            The relief sought by Kleinsmith 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

                                - 2 -