Harvey Short


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Harvey Short Doc. 0 Case: 10-1657 Document: 7 Date Filed: 11/08/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1657 In Re: HARVEY P. SHORT, Petitioner.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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?