UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6820
In Re: PHILLIP M. PROPST,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-95-151)
Submitted: September 20, 2001 Decided: September 27, 2001
Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Phillip M. Propst, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Phillip Propst has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus
from this court seeking to challenge his state conviction and for
release of documents. 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 desires” and that his
entitlement to such relief is “clear and indisputable.” Allied
Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980). Propst has
not made such a showing. A petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000) is the proper vehicle to attack his
conviction. Propst has previously filed such a petition. Accord-
ingly, we deny Propst’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and his
petition for mandamus relief. 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