In re: Rivera v.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
VINCENT F. RIVERA, Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Submitted: November 15, 2006
November 27, 2006
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Vincent F. Rivera, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM: Vincent F. Rivera petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to accept his
complaint for filing and challenging the validity of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2000), which was amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. We conclude that Rivera is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Further, mandamus is a used in extraordinary
Ass'n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). drastic remedy and should only be
Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394,
402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Additionally, mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). The relief sought by Rivera is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny Rivera's motion objecting to the terms of the Prison Litigation Reform Act and deny the petition for writ of mandamus. Rivera's motion to expedite is denied as moot. 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.
- 2 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?