In Re: McElhiney v. , 138 F. App'x 537 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6338
In Re: BERTRAM NORMAN MCELHINEY,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Submitted: June 15, 2005 Decided: July 7, 2005
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bertram Norman McElhiney, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Bertram Norman McElhiney seeks a writ of mandamus
compelling the district court to provide him with a free transcript
of his plea hearing in North Carolina state court. For the reasons
that follow, we deny the petition.
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).
The relief McElhiney seeks is not available by way of
mandamus. In particular, there are other adequate means to attain
the relief McElhiney desires, and McElhiney is unable to meet all
the criteria set forth in In re Braxton, 258 F.3d 250, 261 (4th
Cir. 2001), for obtaining mandamus relief. Accordingly, although
we grant McElhiney’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
we deny the mandamus petition. 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
- 2 -