UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-1568
In Re: CAMILLE T. TAYLOR,
Petitioner.
No. 00-1569
In Re: CAMILLE T. TAYLOR; SIMON BANKS, Doctor,
Petitioners.
On Petitions for Writ of Mandamus.
(CA-00-630-A, CA-00-682-A)
Submitted: September 29, 2000 Decided: October 19, 2000
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Camille T. Taylor, Simon Banks, Petitioners Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated mandamus petitions, Camille Taylor and
Simon Banks seek orders staying the district court's remand to
state court of Charles E. Smith Residential Realty, L.P. v. Taylor,
No. 00-CV-630 (E.D. Va. May 1 & May 26, 2000), and consolidating
that action with a separate case Taylor and Banks filed in the
district court, Taylor v. Charles E. Smith Residential Realty,
L.P., No. 00-CV-682 (E.D. Va. Aug. 21, 2000). Although we grant
the motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the
petitions.
Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a
clear right to the relief sought. See Allied Chemical Corp. v.
Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980); In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan
Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). In addition, mandamus is
a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary situa-
tions. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402
(1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Here, the
district court lost jurisdiction over case No. 00-CV-630 as soon as
it entered the remand order. See In re Lowe, 102 F.3d 731, 736
(4th Cir. 1996). Thus, the district court could not properly have
stayed its remand order, and we will not order the district court
to do so. Further, because No. 00-CV-630 was remanded pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1446 (1994), the remand order is not reviewable. See
28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (1994). Accordingly, any attempt by this court
2
to stay the remand would not be “in aid of” our jurisdiction, so
mandamus relief is not appropriate. 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)(1994); see
Allied Chemical Corp., 449 U.S. at 34-35. Thus, we decline to
award the relief requested.
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.
PETITIONS DENIED
3