Pilkington v.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit November 19, 1999

Opinion

No. 99-7252

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-99-1113-H)

Submitted: November 9, 1999 Decided: November 19, 1999

Before HAMILTON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Allen Pilkington, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Eric Allen Pilkington filed a petition for writ of mandamus

requesting that this court order the district court to hold an evi-

dentiary hearing to resolve the issues raised in Pilkington’s

28 U.S.C.A. § 2254

(West 1994 & Supp. 1999) petition, which he filed

in the district court earlier this year. The district court denied

relief on Pilkington’s § 2254 petition because it was untimely

filed under the applicable filing limitations period. See

28 U.S.C.A. § 2244

(d) (West Supp. 1999). This court dismissed

Pilkington’s appeal, see Pilkington v. Logan, No. 99-6758,

1999 WL 635689

(4th Cir. Aug. 20, 1999) (unpublished), and denied his

subsequent petition for rehearing.

In this mandamus petition, Pilkington failed to establish that

he has a clear right to the relief sought. See In re First Fed.

Sav. & Loan Ass’n,

(4th Cir. 1988). Further,

mandamus relief may not be used as a substitute for appeal. See In

re United Steelworkers,

(4th Cir. 1979). Because

Pilkington essentially seeks another appeal of the district court’s

denial of his § 2254 petition, we deny his petition for a writ of

mandamus. Although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.