UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-559
In Re: DOROTHY P. LITZENBERG (Mrs.),
Petitioner.
No. 98-560
In Re: DOROTHY P. LITZENBERG (Mrs.),
Petitioner.
On Petitions for Writs of Mandamus. (CA-97-3681-JFM)
Submitted: July 7, 1998 Decided: October 20, 1998
Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dorothy P. Litzenberg, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Dorothy P. Litzenberg filed several petitions requesting this
court to hold a hearing and prevent the sale of marital assets by
her ex-husband, to order the district court and the United States
Attorney to enforce her property rights, to order the district
court to compel her ex-husband to pay property taxes on her home,
and to order the district court to issue protective orders in her
favor and rescind all property sales held by her ex-husband. We
construe all motions as petitions for mandamus relief and deny
them.
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, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). The party seeking mandamus re-
lief carries the heavy burden of showing she has “no other adequate
means” to attain the relief he desires, and that her right to such
relief is “clear and indisputable.” See Allied Chem. Corp. v.
Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980) (citations omitted).
We deny Litzenberg’s motions because she does not present
extraordinary circumstances that require granting a writ of man-
damus. She fails to show that her right to relief is clear and
indisputable and that she has exhausted all available means of
relief. Accordingly, we deny mandamus relief. We also deny her
2
motion 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.
PETITIONS DENIED
3