UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1338
In Re: CHARLES V. BEAHM, JR.; KATHRYN B.
BEAHM; KATHY A. JOHNSON; RANDY W. JOHNSON,
Petitioners.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-02-21-3)
Submitted: June 10, 2003 Decided: July 18, 2003
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles V. Beahm, Jr., Kathryn B. Beahm, Kathy A. Johnson, Randy W.
Johnson, Petitioners Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Petitioners* seek a writ of mandamus compelling the district
court to join them as party plaintiffs to an existing lawsuit. For
the reasons that follow, we find that such relief is unavailable.
Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a
clear right to the relief sought. See 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
circumstances. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S.
394, 402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987).
Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. See In re
United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979).
The relief sought by Petitioners is not available by way of
mandamus. In particular, mandamus is not the only adequate remedy
available to Petitioners, and Petitioners are unable to meet all
the requirements set forth in In re Braxton, 258 F.3d 250, 261 (4th
Cir. 2001), for obtaining mandamus relief. Accordingly, we 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
*
“Petitioners” refers to Charles V. Beahm, Jr., Kathryn B.
Beahm, Kathy A. Johnson, and Randy W. Johnson.
2