UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7586
In Re: HENRY BATISTE,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-99-2544)
Submitted: May 15, 2001 Decided: June 7, 2001
Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henry Batiste, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Henry Batiste has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus,
requesting this court to direct the district court to expedite its
review of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000) petition.
Subsequent to Batiste’s filing in this court, however, the district
court denied one of Batiste’s pending motions and remanded the case
to the magistrate judge. The magistrate judge then denied the
remaining pending motions and ordered the Respondents to answer
Batiste’s petition. As it appears the case is currently progress-
ing, intervention by this court is not warranted.
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). 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 en-
titlement to such relief is clear and indisputable. Allied Chem.
Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980). Batiste has not
made such a showing. Accordingly, we deny Batiste’s motion to pro-
ceed in forma pauperis and deny his petition for mandamus relief.
We dispense with oral argument, because the facts and legal conten-
2
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3