In Re: Paul Graham v. , 65 F. App'x 908 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                            UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-6059
    In Re:   PAUL GRAHAM,
    Petitioner.
    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.   (CA-02-3580)
    Submitted:   May 1, 2003                     Decided:   June 5, 2003
    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Paul Graham, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Paul Graham has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus
    seeking to have this court compel the district court to grant his
    motion to amend his complaint in a 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     (2000) action
    that the district court has since closed by entering final judgment
    in favor of the defendant.
    Mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in
    extraordinary situations.    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 relief is only available when there are no other
    means by which the relief sought could be granted, In re Beard, 
    811 F.2d 818
    , 826 (4th Cir. 1987), and may not be used as a substitute
    for appeal.   In re Catawba Indian Tribe, 
    973 F.2d 1133
    , 1135 (4th
    Cir. 1992).    The party seeking prohibition or mandamus relief
    carries the heavy burden of showing that he has no other adequate
    means to attain the relief he desires and that his entitlement to
    such relief is clear and indisputable.        Allied Chem. Corp. v.
    Daiflon, Inc., 
    449 U.S. 33
    , 35 (1980).
    Graham fails to make such a showing because mandamus relief
    may not be used as a substitute for appeal.      Because Graham may
    challenge the district court’s adverse decision on appeal, we deny
    Graham’s petition for a writ of mandamus. We grant leave to proceed
    in forma pauperis in this Court.      We dispense with oral argument
    because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
    2
    the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.
    PETITION DENIED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-6059

Citation Numbers: 65 F. App'x 908

Judges: Motz, Niemeyer, Per Curiam, Traxler

Filed Date: 6/5/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023