Harvey Short
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [998358763-2]; granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [998358774-2] Originating case number: 2:09-cv-0119 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998461268] [10-1657]
<![CDATA[
Harvey Short
Doc. 0
Case: 10-1657 Document: 7
Date Filed: 11/08/2010
Page: 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1657 In Re: HARVEY P. SHORT, Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Submitted: October 29, 2010
(2:09-cv-00119) November 8, 2010
Decided:
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Harvey P. Short, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Dockets.Justia.com
Case: 10-1657 Document: 7
Date Filed: 11/08/2010
Page: 2
PER CURIAM: Harvey seeking an order P. to Short petitions the for a writ of of mandamus Social
compel
Commissioner
the
Security Administration and an Assistant United States Attorney in West Virginia to make back payments of Social Security
benefits to which Short claims he is entitled. Short is not entitled to mandamus relief.
We conclude that
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only Dist. in extraordinary 426 circumstances. 394, 402 Kerr v. United States v.
Court, 333
U.S. 509,
(1976); (4th Cir.
United 2003).
States
Moussaoui,
F.3d
516-17
Further,
mandamus relief may be obtained only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and there is no other available remedy. In re Braxton, 258 F.3d 250, 261 (4th Cir. 2001); In re
First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Because Short had another available remedy, and has availed himself of that remedy by filing an action currently pending in federal district court, relief 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. legal We dispense with oral argument because the facts and are adequately presented in the materials
contentions
2
Case: 10-1657 Document: 7
Date Filed: 11/08/2010
Page: 3
before
the
court
and
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional
process. PETITION DENIED
3
]]>
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?
