Filed: Mar. 30, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6160 In Re: BILLY JOE PELFREY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-99-693-3) Submitted: March 22, 2001 Decided: March 30, 2001 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Billy Joe Pelfrey, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Billy Joe Pelfrey has filed a petition for a
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6160 In Re: BILLY JOE PELFREY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-99-693-3) Submitted: March 22, 2001 Decided: March 30, 2001 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Billy Joe Pelfrey, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Billy Joe Pelfrey has filed a petition for a w..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6160
In Re: BILLY JOE PELFREY,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-99-693-3)
Submitted: March 22, 2001 Decided: March 30, 2001
Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Billy Joe Pelfrey, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Billy Joe Pelfrey has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus
from this court seeking to have this court order the district court
handling his case to transfer his case to another district court,
to restore the filing time for all discovery, to seize various
records from the Defendants in his civil action, to order an in-
vestigation as to why Defendants do not have certain records, and
to make the results of such investigation known to him. Mandamus
is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances.
Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,
426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Man-
damus 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 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). Pelfrey has not made that showing.
Accordingly, we deny mandamus relief. 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