UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-7201
In Re: GRANT ANDERSON,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-99-337)
Submitted: October 29, 1999 Decided: November 9, 1999
Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Grant Anderson, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Grant Anderson filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking
an order compelling the district court to explain why it does not
have jurisdiction to consider his habeas petitions and to explain
its case assignment process. We deny the petition.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary
circumstances. See 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, see In
re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987), and may not be used as
a substitute for appeal. See In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d
958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). The party seeking mandamus relief car-
ries the heavy burden of showing that he has "no other adequate
means to attain the relief he desires" and that his right to such
relief is “clear and indisputable.” Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon,
Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980). Anderson has not made such a
showing. Accordingly, we deny his petition for a writ of mandamus.
Anderson is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Anderson’s
motions for enlargements of time and to compel are denied as moot.
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