Charles Price, Jr.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
CHARLES PRICE, JR., Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
July 30, 2009
August 4, 2009
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Price, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Charles Price, Jr., a Maryland inmate, petitions for a writ of mandamus compelling: (1) a Federal Reserve bank to act as a fiduciary for eleven million dollars; (2) the State of Maryland to compensate him for injuries he sustained while
incarcerated at the Baltimore City Detention Center; and (3) officials with the Circuit Court for Baltimore City to grant him a speedy trial and reasonable bail. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in
extraordinary circumstances. 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976);
Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826
(4th Cir. 1987).
The party seeking mandamus relief bears the
heavy burden of showing that he has no other adequate avenues of relief and that his right to the relief sought is clear and indisputable. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S.
296, 309 (1989). Price fails to show a clear and indisputable right to relief against the Federal Reserve bank and the Baltimore City Detention Center. Further, because this court does not have
jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials, Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969), the relief Price seeks against officials with the Circuit Court for Baltimore City is not available by way of mandamus. 2
forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?