UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1214
In Re: LORI BLAQUIERE, MICHAEL STEPHEN
ZARLENGA,
Petitioners.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
(CA-96-361-7-10, CA-97-3590-7-10)
Submitted: March 14, 2003 Decided: March 27, 2003
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lori Blaquiere, Michael Stephen Zarlenga, Petitioners Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Lori Blaquiere and Michael Zarlenga filed this petition for a
writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court for
the District of South Carolina to vacate several orders and grant
the relief denied by those orders, and an order to the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation directing the Panel to vacate its
order remanding Petitioners’ cases to the district court for the
District of Rhode Island pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 (2000).
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). The party seeking prohibition
or 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); In re First
Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Mandamus
may not be used as a substitute for appeal. See In re United
Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979).
We have reviewed the petition and find it fails to present the
extraordinary circumstances justifying the grant of the writ.
Accordingly, we deny Petitioners’ motions to proceed in forma
pauperis as unnecessary, deny Petitioners’ motion for the
2
appointment of counsel, and deny the petition for 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