In re Kleinsmith

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
In re Kleinsmith, 115 F. App'x 171 (4th Cir. 2004)

In re Kleinsmith

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

Philip M. Kleinsmith petitions for writ of mandamus. He seeks an order enjoining the district court from requiring pro bono service as a condition of membership in the court’s Bar.

Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. See In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979).

The relief sought by Kleinsmith is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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.

PETITION DENIED

Reference

Full Case Name
In re: Philip M. KLEINSMITH
Status
Published