No. 08-5432.United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Filed On: January 23, 2009.
BEFORE: Sentelle, Chief Judge, and Tatel and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the petition for writ of mandamus, and the motion for appointment of counsel, it is
ORDERED that the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis be granted. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel be denied. With the exception of defendants appealing or defending in criminal cases, appellants are not entitled to appointment of counsel when they have not demonstrated sufficient likelihood of success on the merits. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for writ of mandamus be denied. Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to vacate his conviction and remand for resentencing. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he has “no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires” or that his right to relief is “clear and indisputable.” Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon,Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980). Petitioner has another avenue available to seek the requested relief — he may and, in fact has, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the appropriate court. See Chatman-Bey v.Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 806 n. 2 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (noting that because mandamus is a drastic remedy, mandamus would be available only if the complaint fell outside the reach of habeas or if habeas was inefficacious); James v.Jackson, No. 06cv0998 (M.D.N.C. petition for habeas corpus filed by petitioner on November 15, 2006).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.
Page 1