UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6322
In Re: PATRICE BEHANZIN WILSON,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (96-cr-36-1)
Submitted: August 20, 2007 Decided: September 6, 2007
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Patrice Behanzin Wilson, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Patrice Behanzin Wilson petitions this court for a writ
of mandamus. Wilson seeks an extension of the time period within
which to file a petition for rehearing, an order directing the
district court to conduct an evidentiary hearing, and an order
directing the district court to particularize its basis for denying
Wilson’s Fed. R. Civ. P 60(b) motion for reconsideration. Because
we conclude that Wilson is not entitled to mandamus relief, we deny
the petition.
Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has
a clear right to the relief sought and there are no other means to
seek the requested relief. 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). Mandamus may not be used
as a substitute for appeal. In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d
958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979).
We previously denied Wilson’s request for an extension of
the period within which to file a petition for rehearing, and
decline to reconsider that decision here. Further, we denied a
certificate of appealability and dismissed Wilson’s appeal as to
the district court’s denial of Wilson’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)
motion, see United States v. Wilson, 178 F. App’x 274 (4th Cir.
- 2 -
2006) (unpublished), and we will not reconsider the propriety of
the district court’s decision not to conduct an evidentiary hearing
or the sufficiency of the district court’s order in this
proceeding. Because Wilson fails to establish the requisite
extraordinary circumstances, he has not established he is entitled
to the relief he seeks.
Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, 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
- 3 -