In re: Demetric Gray Pearson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7370
In Re: DEMETRIC GRAY PEARSON,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(CA-02-1478-PJM)
Submitted: November 7, 2002 Decided: November 15, 2002
Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Demetric Gray Pearson, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Demetric Gray Pearson petitions for a writ of mandamus. He
seeks orders requiring the Government to show cause and recusing
the district court. Pearson also raises claims concerning alleged
errors in his state court proceedings.
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 (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).
Our review of the district court’s docket reveals the
Government filed its response and the district court has ruled;
therefore, this issue is moot. As to the remainder of Pearson’s
arguments, the relief sought by Pearson is not available by way of
mandamus.
Accordingly, although we grant 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

-- 2 of 2 --