91 F.3d 133 (4th Cir. 1996), 96-516, Matter of Smith

• Citation: 91 F.3d 133
• Party Name: In re: Peter C. SMITH, Petitioner.
• Case Date: June 28, 1996
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals, U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Page 133

91 F.3d 133 (4th Cir. 1996)

In re: Peter C. SMITH, Petitioner.

No. 96-516.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

June 28, 1996

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA4 Rule 36 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Submitted June 20, 1996.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-87-8055)

PETITION DENIED.

Peter C. Smith, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Peter C. Smith filed a petition for a writ of prohibition seeking an order preventing the United States Parole Commission from exercising jurisdiction over him and from enforcing its denial of Smith's parole. A writ of prohibition is a drastic remedy which should be granted only where the petitioner's right to the requested relief is indisputable. In re Vargas, 723 F.2d 1461, 1468 (10th Cir.1983); In re Missouri, 664 F.2d 178, 180 (8th Cir.1981). Further, a writ of prohibition should be granted only where the petitioner has no other adequate means of seeking the requested relief. In re Bankers Trust Co., 775 F.2d 545, 547 (3d Cir.1985). Smith has failed to establish his right to such relief. Accordingly, although we grant his application to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny his petition for a writ of prohibition. 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