Categories: Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions

IN RE: RUFF, 297 Fed.Appx. 280 (4th Cir. 2008)

In re: Timothy Lamont RUFF, Petitioner.

No. 08-1722.United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.Submitted: October 21, 2008.
Decided: October 23, 2008.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (4:96-cr-00056-LHT-1).

Timothy Lamont Ruff, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Lamont Ruff petitions for a writ of mandamus requesting that this court direct his release from prison based on his claim that the United States lacked jurisdiction to prosecute him. We conclude that Ruff is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief

Page 281

sought. In re First Fed. Sav. Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dint. 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. In re United Steel/workers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979).

The relief sought by Ruff 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. 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.

jdjungle