In re: Kris Pletschke, d/b/a Raw Health

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1202
In Re: KRIS PLETSCHKE, d/b/a Raw Health,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Prohibition.
(CA-03-214)
Submitted: April 29, 2004 Decided: May 5, 2004
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kris Pletschke, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Kris Pletschke petitions for a writ of prohibition. He
seeks an order preventing further legal actions against him in a
district court proceeding filed by the Federal Trade Commission.
A writ of mandamus or prohibition 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 and prohibition are drastic remedies and should
only be used in extraordinary circumstances. See Kerr v. United
States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d
818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Mandamus and prohibition may not be used
as a substitute for appeal. See In re United Steelworkers, 595
F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979).
Because he does not have a clear right to the relief he
seeks, and because he may appeal any final adverse judgment in the
district court proceeding, the relief sought by Pletschke is not
available by way of a writ of prohibition. Accordingly, we deny
the petition. 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

-- 2 of 2 --