In Re: Bast v. ( 1996 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 96-542
    In Re: RICHARD L. BAST,
    Petitioner.
    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
    (CA-94-784-A, CA-95-531-A)
    Submitted:   June 21, 1996                 Decided:   July 11, 1996
    Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Richard L. Bast, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Richard L. Bast has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus
    requesting that the court correct or vacate a number of prior deci-
    sions and recuse certain judges from hearing his appeals. Mandamus
    is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances.
    Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 
    426 U.S. 394
    , 402 (1976). Manda-
    mus relief is available only if there are no other means by which
    the relief sought could be granted, In re Beard, 
    811 F.2d 818
    , 827
    (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 relief he de-
    sires" and that his right to such relief is "clear and indisput-
    able." Allied Chem. Corp. v. Diaflon, Inc., 
    449 U.S. 33
    , 35 (1980)
    (citations omitted).
    We deny Bast's requests to correct or vacate prior decisions
    because mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. We
    also deny Bast's requests to recuse the judges because he fails to
    allege an extrajudicial bias. See In re Beard, 
    811 F.2d 818
    , 827
    (4th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, we deny mandamus relief. We dispense
    with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
    quately presented in the materials before the court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.
    PETITION DENIED
    2