In re: Spencer v. , 203 F. App'x 470 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6558
In Re: DWIGHT SPENCER,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Submitted: September 29, 2006 Decided: October 23, 2006
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dwight Spencer, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Dwight Spencer petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking
an order from this court directing the clerk of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to file his pro
se motion to show cause. In the motion to show cause, Spencer
seeks to require the Government to explain why money confiscated
from his person in 1997 was forfeited, and why he did not receive
notice of the forfeiture. The district court clerk responded to
the mandamus petition, explaining that the documentation appended
to Spencer’s mandamus petition shows that he mailed the order to
show cause to the Asset Forfeiture Section of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, not to the district court. The district court’s
records do not reflect that the court ever received any filing from
Spencer.
Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has
a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan
Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a
drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary
circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394,
402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). We
conclude that because Spencer did not mail his show cause order to
the district court, he has not met his burden of showing that his
right to the relief sought in his mandamus petition is “clear and
indisputable.” Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33,
35 (1980) (citations omitted).
- 2 -
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
- 3 -