In re Cornelious Leroy CHASE, Petitioner, 473 F. App'x 192

PER CURIAM: Cornelious Leroy Chase petitions for a writ of mandamus, requesting that the court direct one of the defendants named in his pending 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action to file an answer to his complaint. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Disk Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir.2003). Mandamus relief is available only when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted, and should not be used as a substitute for appeal.

Moussaoui, 333 F.3d at 517. The party seeking mandamus relief bears the heavy burden of showing he has no other adequate means to obtain the relief sought and that his entitlement to relief is clear and indisputable. Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35, 101 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980). Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that Chase filed a motion identical to his current petition in the district court on January 25, 2012. The district court denied it on February 14. Because mandamus relief is not a substitute form of appellate relief, we deny Chase’s petition.

We likewise deny his pending motions to appoint counsel and to set a trial date. 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.