Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

159 F. App'x 488

In re Robinson

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided December 16, 2005

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2005-12-16

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of Cal. · In Re First Federal Savings And Loan Association Of Durham · In Re Diana R Beard et Als

Decided 2005-12-16

PER CURIAM:

¶1Restoney Robinson petitions for writ of mandamus challenging the magistrate judge’s deficiency order in a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) action Robinson filed in 2003. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. See In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). The relief sought by Robinson is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the mandamus petition. 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.

¶2PETITION DENIED

/159/fappx/488 · .json · Public domain