In Re: Crusenberry v.

Fourth Circuit

In Re: Crusenberry v.

30 F. App'x 216

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 7, 2002

Docket01-8097

StatusUnpublished

This text of 30 F. App'x 216 (In Re: Crusenberry 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: Crusenberry v., 30 F. App'x 216 (4th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Stanley Wilson Crusenberry has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to have this court reverse a state conviction. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary situations. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). Mandamus relief is only available when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted, In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987), and may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Catawba Indian Tribe, 973 F.2d 1133, 1135 (4th Cir.1992). The party seeking mandamus relief carries the heavy burden of showing that he has no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires and that his entitlement to such relief is clear and indisputable. Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35, 101 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980).

Crusenberry filed a petition under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2001) in district court which the district court denied because it was untimely filed under the applicable filing limitations period. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d) (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). This Court dismissed Crusenberr/s appeal. Crusenberry v. Angelone, No. 01-7229, 19 Fed.Appx. 142, 2001 WL 1159690 (4th Cir. Sept. 28, 2001) (unpublished).

In this mandamus petition, Crusenberry has failed to show that he has a clear right to the relief sought. Because Crusenberry essentially seeks another appeal of the district court’s denial of his § 2254 petition, we deny his petition for a writ of mandamus. Although we grant Crusenberry leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court *217 and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED.

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

PER CURIAM.

Stanley Wilson Crusenberry has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to have this court reverse a state conviction. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary situations. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). Mandamus relief is only available when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted, In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987), and may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Catawba Indian Tribe, 973 F.2d 1133, 1135 (4th Cir.1992). The party seeking mandamus relief carries the heavy burden of showing that he has no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires and that his entitlement to such relief is clear and indisputable. Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35, 101 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980).

Crusenberry filed a petition under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2001) in district court which the district court denied because it was untimely filed under the applicable filing limitations period. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d) (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). This Court dismissed Crusenberr/s appeal. Crusenberry v. Angelone, No. 01-7229, 19 Fed.Appx. 142, 2001 WL 1159690 (4th Cir. Sept. 28, 2001) (unpublished).

In this mandamus petition, Crusenberry has failed to show that he has a clear right to the relief sought. Because Crusenberry essentially seeks another appeal of the district court’s denial of his § 2254 petition, we deny his petition for a writ of mandamus. Although we grant Crusenberry leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court *217 and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 F. App'x 216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-crusenberry-v-ca4-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack