UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6043
In Re: MICHAEL MCEVILY,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ to Certify Question of Law.
Submitted: February 6, 2003 Decided: February 13, 2003
Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael McEvily, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael McEvily filed a petition seeking review of Va. Code
Ann. § 18.2-104 (2002) under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361
(2000), and an injunction against future enforcement of the
statute. McEvily asserts that the statute is ambiguous and
therefore unconstitutional. We decline to exercise jurisdiction
over McEvily’s petition.
The All Writs Act vests all statutorily created federal
courts, including this court, with authority to issue “all writs
necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions.”
See 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (2000). Injunctive relief under the All Writs
Act, however, is available “only in the most critical and exigent
circumstances . . . if the legal rights at issue are indisputably
clear.” Brown v. Gilmore, 533 U.S. 1301, 1303 (2001) (Rehnquist,
C.J., in chambers) (internal citations and quotation marks
omitted). We conclude that McEvily’s petition does not satisfy
this standard. Moreover, McEvily asserts that he has challenged
the constitutionality of the statute in question in a petition for
a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) that is
pending in the district court. Initial review of the statute in
question and development of the record are appropriately conducted
by the district court. If McEvily fails to obtain the relief he
seeks in the district court, he may assert his claim on appeal to
this court.
2
Accordingly, although we grant McEvily’s motion to proceed in
forma pauperis, we dismiss his petition. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal issues are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3