In Re: Smith v.

157 F. App'x 624
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in In Re: Smith v.. Read the opinion of the Court — 122 F. App'x 687
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided December 7, 2005·No. 05-7381·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Bernard Smith petitions for a writ of mandamus. He seeks an order requiring the Bureau of Prisons to accept his state substance abuse program and promote him to the next pay grade for prison employment.

Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. See 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. See 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. See In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.1979).

The relief sought by Smith is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We grant Smith leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny his motion for appointment of counsel. 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

In Re: Smith v., 157 F. App'x 624 (4th Cir. 2005).

157 F. App'x 624 (In Re: Smith v.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)