In Re: Graham v.

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-518 In Re: RONALD GRAHAM, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: May 7, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald Graham, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ronald Graham has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order from this court forbidding certain judges and court personnel from further participation in any of Graham's law- suits and directing that his cases henceforth be heard in Roanoke, Virginia. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extra- ordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Mandamus relief is only available 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). The party seeking manda- mus relief carries the heavy burden of showing that he has "no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires" and that his right to such relief is "clear and indisputable." Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980). Graham has not made such a showing. Accordingly, although we grant Graham's application to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny mandamus relief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument wold not aid the decisional process. We deny the motion to trans- fer, the motion to prevent certain judges from handling future cases, and the motion to be subpoenaed as a witness. PETITION DENIED 2