Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: Dyess V., 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    Calvin Douglas Dyess and Michael Jason Bartram petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to allow Dyess to withdraw his guilty plea. The Fourth Circuit denied the petition, finding that mandamus relief is only available when there is a clear right to the relief sought. Mandamus is also a drastic remedy that should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. The relief sought by Dyess through mandamus was not available, so the Fourth Circuit denied the petition.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-03-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-7518

    Original Title

    In Re: Dyess v., 4th Cir. (2004)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Calvin Douglas Dyess and Michael Jason Bartram petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to allow Dyess to withdraw his guilty plea. The Fourth Circuit denied the petition, finding that mandamus relief is only available when there is a clear right to the relief sought. Mandamus is also a drastic remedy that should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. The relief sought by Dyess through mandamus was not available, so the Fourth Circuit denied the petition.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    5 views2 pages

    In Re: Dyess V., 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Calvin Douglas Dyess and Michael Jason Bartram petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to allow Dyess to withdraw his guilty plea. The Fourth Circuit denied the petition, finding that mandamus relief is only available when there is a clear right to the relief sought. Mandamus is also a drastic remedy that should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. The relief sought by Dyess through mandamus was not available, so the Fourth Circuit denied the petition.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 03-7518

    In Re:
    CALVIN DOUGLAS DYESS; MICHAEL JASON
    BARTRAM,

    Petitioners.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-99-12)

    Submitted:

    November 17, 2003

    Decided:

    March 18, 2004

    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Calvin Douglas Dyess and Michael Jason Bartram, Petitioners Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Calvin Douglas Dyess petitions for a writ of mandamus.
    He seeks an order directing the district court to allow him to
    withdraw his guilty plea.
    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 (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 Dyess is not available by way of
    mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma
    pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

    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

    - 2 -

    You might also like