UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7326
In Re: ANTHONY ANDREWS,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(CR-01-27-F; CA-02-44-7-F)
Submitted: December 21, 2005 Decided: January 20, 2006
Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Andrews, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Andrews petitions for writ of mandamus. He seeks
an order from this court removing the assigned district court judge
from all post-conviction proceedings pursued by Andrews in the
district court.
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 available only 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, 1136 (4th Cir. 1992). The party seeking
mandamus relief bears the heavy burden of showing he has no other
adequate means to obtain the relief sought and that his entitlement
to relief is “clear and indisputable.” Allied Chem. Corp. v.
Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980).
Andrews fails to demonstrate he has no other adequate
means to obtain the relief sought or that he is entitled to such
relief. Therefore, although we grant leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and the motion to supplement, we deny the motions for
abeyance as moot, deny the motion to file an oversized mandamus
petition as moot, and deny the petition for mandamus.
- 2 -
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 -