UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-2086
In Re: VAN ANTHONY ROSE,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(3:04-cr-00194-RJC-CH-1; 3:08-cv-00216-RJC)
Submitted: December 7, 2010 Decided: December 30, 2010
Before SHEDD and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Van Anthony Rose, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Van Anthony Rose petitions for a writ of mandamus
seeking an order compelling the district court to rule on his 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion and to order the
production of previously-requested grand jury transcripts. We
conclude that Rose is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used
only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States
Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v.
Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further,
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).
Our review of the district court’s docket sheet
reveals that the district court entered a final order and
judgment on September 27, 2010, in which it denied relief on
Rose’s § 2255 motion. Accordingly, because the district court
recently decided Rose’s case, we deny Rose’s mandamus petition
in part as moot.
To the extent that Rose seeks an order compelling the
production of grand jury transcripts, he fails to show that he
has a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought. Rose
fails to explain why he needs the transcripts in his mandamus
petition, and provided no reason for his request in his motion
2
before the district court. See In re Braxton, 258 F.3d 250, 261
(4th Cir. 2001) (stating that petitioner seeking mandamus must
establish that he has a clear and indisputable right to the
relief sought); In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 800 F.2d 1293,
1299 (4th Cir. 1986) (setting forth balancing test for
petitioners seeking release of grand jury transcripts). Because
the relief sought by Rose is not available by way of mandamus,
we deny this portion of his petition.
We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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