UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6047
In Re: RODERICK W. MILLER,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-98-1603-L)
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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roderick W. Miller, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Roderick W. Miller petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an
order directing the district court to grant relief in a habeas
corpus proceeding. Alternatively, Miller requests this court to
issue an original writ of habeas corpus. Mandamus is a drastic
remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v.
United States Dist. Ct., 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
United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). 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 right to such relief is “clear and indisputable.” Allied
Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980).
Here, Miller has not made the requisite showing. The district
court’s docket sheet reveals that the district court has denied
Miller’s habeas petition and recently denied Miller’s motion for
reconsideration of that order. Because Miller can appeal the dis-
trict court’s final order, mandamus relief is unavailable to him.
We also deny Miller’s request that we grant a petition for a writ
of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241(b) (West 1994 & Supp. 2001);
Fed. R. App. P. 22(a).
2
Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and
deny mandamus relief. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-
rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITION DENIED
3