Court Opinion

ID: 8433431
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-04 09:26:47.286167+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:48:39.898851
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
Ricardo Gutierrez DePineres petitions for writ of mandamus. He requests that this court review the district court’s actions following the remand of DePineres’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) case for further proceedings, to determine whether the district court is complying with this court’s mandate.
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, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (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 DePineres is not available by way of mandamus. 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