In re Ingram

110 F. App'x 312
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 23, 2004
DocketNo. 04-6920
StatusPublished

This text of 110 F. App'x 312 (In re Ingram) 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 Ingram, 110 F. App'x 312 (4th Cir. 2004).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Walter Louis Ingram petitions for writ of mandamus. He seeks an order directing the district court to issue writ of habeas corpus.

Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.1979).

[313]*313The relief sought by Ingram is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant Ingram’s motion for 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

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

Related

In Re United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio-Clc
595 F.2d 958 (Fourth Circuit, 1979)
In Re Diana R. Beard, (Two Cases)
811 F.2d 818 (Fourth Circuit, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
110 F. App'x 312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ingram-ca4-2004.