Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: Washington V., 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    16 views2 pages
    Carl Washington filed a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to order discovery in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied the petition. Mandamus is a drastic remedy only used in extraordinary circumstances, which Washington did not demonstrate. He did not show he had no other means to attain relief or that his right to relief was clear and indisputable. The court concluded mandamus cannot substitute for an appeal and denied the petition.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-06-06 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-6290

    Original Title

    In re: Washington v., 4th Cir. (2002)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Carl Washington filed a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to order discovery in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied the petition. Mandamus is a drastic remedy only used in extraordinary circumstances, which Washington did not demonstrate. He did not show he had no other means to attain relief or that his right to relief was clear and indisputable. The court concluded mandamus cannot substitute for an appeal and denied the petition.

    Copyright:

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

    In Re: Washington V., 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Carl Washington filed a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to order discovery in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied the petition. Mandamus is a drastic remedy only used in extraordinary circumstances, which Washington did not demonstrate. He did not show he had no other means to attain relief or that his right to relief was clear and indisputable. The court concluded mandamus cannot substitute for an appeal and 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 02-6290

    In Re:

    CARL WASHINGTON,
    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.


    (CR-98-825, CA-01-4249-3-19)

    Submitted:

    May 30, 2002

    Decided:

    June 6, 2002

    Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Carl Washington, Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Carl Washington petitions the court for a writ of mandamus, 28
    U.S.C.

    1651

    (1994),

    directing

    the

    district

    court

    to

    order

    discovery in a 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp. 2001) proceeding.


    Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary
    circumstances.

    Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394,

    402 (1976). Consequently, the party seeking mandamus relief carries


    the heavy burden of showing 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. Daiflon, Inc., 449

    U.S. 33, 35 (1980) (citations omitted). Mandamus cannot be used as


    a substitute for an appeal.
    958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979).

    In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d


    Washington has not met the applicable

    burden. Accordingly, we deny mandamus relief. 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

    You might also like