UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7090
In Re: VINCENT MISSOURI,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
(6:00-cr-00498-MBS; 6:05-cv-01598-MBS)
Submitted: July 20, 2006 Decided: July 28, 2006
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Vincent Missouri, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Vincent Missouri petitions for a writ of mandamus. He
seeks an order directing the district court to act on his motion
for reconsideration, and asks this court vacate the dismissal of
his motion for collateral review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2000). He also requests leave to file an oversize mandamus
petition. We grant Missouri’s motion to file an oversize petition,
but conclude that Missouri is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has
a clear right to the relief sought. 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. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394,
402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987).
With respect to Missouri’s request that the district
court act on his motion for reconsideration, our review of the
docket sheet reveals that the district court denied the motion in
May 2006. Because the district court recently acted, this portion
of Missouri’s mandamus petition is moot. With respect to the
request that we direct the district court to vacate its order
dismissing his § 2255 motion, we note that mandamus may not be used
as a substitute for appeal. In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d
958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). Because the relief sought by Missouri is
not available by way of mandamus, we deny the petition. We
- 2 -
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 -