UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-660
In Re: ANTHONY GRANDISON; STEVEN H. OKEN; JOHN
BOOTH-EL; WESLEY EUGENE BAKER, et al., Plain-
tiffs, Prisoners of the Maryland Adjustment
Center, under a sentence of death, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated,
Petitioners.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-97-1396-S)
Submitted: April 29, 1998 Decided: May 13, 1998
Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Grandison, Steven H. Oken, John Booth-El, Wesley Eugene
Baker, Petitioners Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Grandison, Steven H. Oken, John Booth-El, and Wesley
Eugene Baker petition for a writ of mandamus seeking relief from
the district court's orders dismissing their lawsuit demanding a
declaration that certain provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effec-
tive Death Penalty Act of 1996 are unconstitutional. Court records
reveal that an appeal from the district court's decision is pending
with this court.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary
circumstances. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394,
402 (1976). Mandamus relief is available only if there are no other
means by which the relief sought could be granted, see In re:
Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir. 1987), and may not be used as a
substitute for appeal. See In re: United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d
958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). The party seeking mandamus 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. Diaflon, Inc., 449
U.S. 33, 35 (1980) (citations omitted).
The petitioners have not made the required showing. According-
ly, while we grant the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauper-
is, we deny mandamus relief. We deny the motion to expedite appeal
or for temporary relief. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-
2
rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITION DENIED
3