UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7767
In Re: RAHSAAN JAMAR WATKINS,
Petitioner.
On Petitions for Writs of Mandamus. (CR-99-189; CA-02-1137-2)
Submitted: March 10, 2004 Decided: March 19, 2004
Before WIDENER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rahsaan Jamar Watkins, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Rahsaan Jamar Watkins has filed three petitions for writs
of mandamus, which have been docketed together for consideration.
His first petition addresses the alleged difficulties he has had
getting papers filed in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) action.
Watkins seeks to have the magistrate judge recused from his case
and an investigation ordered into the magistrate judge, district
court judge, and their clerks. In his second petition, Watkins
seeks an order requiring the district court to give specific
reasons for failing to grant him a certificate of appealability,
and in his third petition, Watkins requests that we order the
district court to file his notice of appeal.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in
extraordinary circumstances. In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th
Cir. 1987). It is available only where there are no other means by
which the relief sought could be granted. Id. Mandamus 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 undisputable. Allied Chem. Corp. v.
Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980),
Regarding Watkins’ first mandamus petition, all of
Watkins’ documents were filed with the exception of a letter dated
- 2 -
September 18, 2003, in which Watkins inquired about his reply
brief. Since this letter may have been construed as an inquiry
rather than a motion, it is likely that it was intentionally and
properly not “filed.” The other motions were apparently not
properly sent to the clerk’s office, even though Watkins was
informed in an August 14, 2003 court order that his documents
should be filed with the clerk’s office. In any event, Watkins
fails to show prejudice from any of the filing delays, and any
errors were quickly rectified. Accordingly, Watkins does not
establish the requisite extraordinary circumstances for mandamus
relief.
Watkins’ two other mandamus petitions are moot, as he has
already received the relief he requested. The district court’s
January 12, 2004 order specifically stated why Watkins’ motion for
a certificate of appealability was denied, and Watkins’ notice of
appeal was timely filed.
Accordingly, we grant Watkins’ motion to proceed in forma
pauperis and deny his mandamus petitions. 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.
PETITIONS DENIED
- 3 -