Filed: Mar. 01, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7640 In Re: PHILLIP M. PROPST, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: March 1, 2001 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Phillip M. Propst, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Phillip Propst has filed a pe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7640 In Re: PHILLIP M. PROPST, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: March 1, 2001 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Phillip M. Propst, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Phillip Propst has filed a pet..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7640
In Re: PHILLIP M. PROPST,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: March 1, 2001
Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Phillip M. Propst, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Phillip Propst has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus
from this court seeking to challenge his state conviction. Manda-
mus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circum-
stances. 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 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). Propst has not made such a showing. A peti-
tion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000)
is the proper vehicle to attack his conviction. Propst has previ-
ously filed such a petition. Accordingly, we deny Propst’s motion
to proceed in forma pauperis and his petition for mandamus relief.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2