UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6036
In Re: RAYMOND JEROME FRANCIS,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-00-141)
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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Raymond Jerome Francis, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Raymond G. Francis has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus
seeking to have this court direct the district court to stay its
order granting in part and denying in part his motion filed under
28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000), to stay the time for filing
an appeal, and to ensure that the court properly dockets his objec-
tions to the court’s final judgment. Mandamus is a drastic remedy
to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. 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 de-
sires” and that his entitlement to such relief is “clear and indis-
putable.” Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35
(1980).
Because Francis has filed an appeal from the district court’s
order in his § 2255 action, he has failed to show that he is
entitled to such extraordinary relief. Accordingly, although we
grant Francis leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the
petition for a writ of mandamus. We deny the motions for judicial
notice, motion to have all trial and sentencing transcripts and
2
exhibits transmitted to this court, and 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
3