Filed: Aug. 02, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6959 In Re: HELFRIED E. SARTORI, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-01-573-AM) Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: August 2, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Helfried E. Sartori, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Helfried E. Sartori, a Virginia inmate conv
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6959 In Re: HELFRIED E. SARTORI, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-01-573-AM) Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: August 2, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Helfried E. Sartori, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Helfried E. Sartori, a Virginia inmate convi..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6959
In Re: HELFRIED E. SARTORI,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-01-573-AM)
Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: August 2, 2002
Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Helfried E. Sartori, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Helfried E. Sartori, a Virginia inmate convicted of practicing
medicine without a license, petitions this Court for a writ of
mandamus directing recission of this Court’s order dismissing
Sartori’s appeal from the denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West
1994 & Supp. 2002) habeas corpus petition. However, mandamus is a
drastic remedy to be used in extraordinary circumstances, In re
Beard,
811 F.2d 818, 826-27 (4th Cir. 1987), requiring Sartori to
demonstrate he has a clear right to the relief sought, that the
respondent has a clear duty to perform the act requested by
petitioner, and that there is no other adequate remedy available,
see In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn,
860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.
1988). Having reviewed Sartori’s petition for mandamus relief, we
find Sartori is not entitled to the relief he seeks. Accordingly,
although we grant Sartori’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, we
deny his petition for a 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
2