Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: Beasley V., 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed James Beasley's petition for a writ of mandamus. Beasley sought an order to reinstate his supplemental security income payments, a matter that had already been fully litigated. The court noted that mandamus is an extreme remedy only used in extraordinary circumstances. Beasley did not meet the heavy burden of showing he had no other means to seek relief and that his right to relief was clear. Therefore, the court dismissed Beasley's petition and denied his motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-03-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-1847

    Original Title

    In re: Beasley v., 4th Cir. (2005)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed James Beasley's petition for a writ of mandamus. Beasley sought an order to reinstate his supplemental security income payments, a matter that had already been fully litigated. The court noted that mandamus is an extreme remedy only used in extraordinary circumstances. Beasley did not meet the heavy burden of showing he had no other means to seek relief and that his right to relief was clear. Therefore, the court dismissed Beasley's petition and denied his motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

    Copyright:

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

    In Re: Beasley V., 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed James Beasley's petition for a writ of mandamus. Beasley sought an order to reinstate his supplemental security income payments, a matter that had already been fully litigated. The court noted that mandamus is an extreme remedy only used in extraordinary circumstances. Beasley did not meet the heavy burden of showing he had no other means to seek relief and that his right to relief was clear. Therefore, the court dismissed Beasley's petition and denied his motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

    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. 04-1847

    In Re:

    JAMES BEASLEY,
    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-99-1568)

    Submitted:

    December 10, 2004

    Decided:

    March 18, 2005

    Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

    Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    James Beasley, Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    James Beasley has filed a petition for writ of mandamus
    seeking an order from this court that would effectively reinstate
    the payment of supplemental security income to Beasley--a matter
    that has been fully litigated.

    Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be

    used only in extraordinary circumstances.


    Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976).
    reluctant to grant a writ of mandamus.

    Kerr v. United States


    [C]ourts are extremely

    In re Ford Motor Co., 751

    F.2d 274, 275 (8th Cir. 1984). In seeking mandamus relief, Beasley
    carries the heavy burden of showing that he has no other adequate
    means to attain the relief sought and that his right to such relief
    is clear and indisputable.

    In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn, 860

    F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).

    We find that Beasley has failed to

    meet this burden and thus we dismiss the petition.

    We deny

    Beasleys motion to proceed in forma pauperis and 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 DISMISSED

    - 2 -

    You might also like