In re: Rodriguez v.

Fourth Circuit

In re: Rodriguez v.

14 F. App'x 240

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJuly 26, 2001

Docket01-1774

StatusUnpublished

This text of 14 F. App'x 240 (In re: Rodriguez 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: Rodriguez v., 14 F. App'x 240 (4th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Isidoro Rodriguez filed this mandamus petition requesting that this Court compel the district court to reinstate his complaint, order discovery, convene a jury to determine the facts and to comply with Rule 4(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Inter-American Convention on Letters of Rogatory, 14 Int’l Legal Materials. 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). 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).

Because Rodriguez has not shown that there is not an available remedy or that he is entitled to the requested relief, we deny his petition for 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.

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

PER CURIAM.

Isidoro Rodriguez filed this mandamus petition requesting that this Court compel the district court to reinstate his complaint, order discovery, convene a jury to determine the facts and to comply with Rule 4(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Inter-American Convention on Letters of Rogatory, 14 Int’l Legal Materials. 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). 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).

Because Rodriguez has not shown that there is not an available remedy or that he is entitled to the requested relief, we deny his petition for 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 F. App'x 240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-rodriguez-v-ca4-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack