UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-4246
In Re: CHARLES RICE, JR.,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-99-136)
Submitted: April 18, 2002 Decided: April 26, 2002
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Rice, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Charles Rice, Jr., has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus
seeking an order from this court directing the Federal Bureau of
Prisons to transfer him from a federal correctional institution in
Maryland to one in Virginia. Mandamus relief is available only
when the petitioner has a “clear right to the relief sought.” In
re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).
Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in
extraordinary situations. 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).
Rice has failed to show that he has a clear right to the
relief sought. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) (1994) (granting the Bureau
of Prisons plenary power to designate place of confinement); Olim
v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245-49 (1983) (discussing requests for
transfers between state institutions). Moreover, Rice may raise
his claims by way of an action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown
2
Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
we deny Rice’s petition for a writ of mandamus. 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
3