Buckshaw v. ( 1997 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-592
In Re: JOHN J. BUCKSHAW,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-96-30-3-MC)
Submitted: January 14, 1997 Decided: January 24, 1997
Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John J. Buckshaw, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
John J. Buckshaw filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seek-
ing an order compelling the district court to conduct an eviden-
tiary hearing and an injunction. We deny the petition.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary
circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402
(1976). 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 United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.
1979). The party seeking mandamus relief carries the heavy burden
of showing that he has "no other adequate means to attain the re-
lief he desires" and that his right to such relief is "clear and
indisputable." Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35
(1980). Buckshaw has not made such a showing. Accordingly, we deny
his petition for a writ of mandamus. Buckshaw is granted leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-
terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITION DENIED
2