In re: Beasley v.

Fourth Circuit

In re: Beasley v.

123 F. App'x 143

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 18, 2005

Docket04-1847

StatusUnpublished

This text of 123 F. App'x 143 (In re: Beasley v.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re: Beasley v., 123 F. App'x 143 (4th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

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. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). “[CJourts are extremely reluctant to grant a writ of mandamus.” 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 Ass’n, 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 Beasley’s 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). “[CJourts are extremely reluctant to grant a writ of mandamus.” 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 Ass’n, 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 Beasley’s 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 F. App'x 143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-beasley-v-ca4-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack