Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive
Search
Yahoo! News
Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog
Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
In Re Frank Ervin Altizer, Jr., Petitioner
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. - 943 F.2d 48
Submitted Aug. 26, 1991.Decided Sept. 10, 1991
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Frank Ervin Altizer, Jr., petitioner pro se.
PETITION DENIED
Before WILKINSON and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Frank Altizer, a Virginia prisoner incarcerated at the Augusta Correctional Center, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in the Western District of Virginia. He wanted the case to be heard in the Charlottesville division, but it was instead forwarded to the Roanoke division. He objected to venue in Roanoke, but the magistrate overruled his objection. The case proceeded in the Roanoke division, and summary judgment was granted in favor of the defendant.
Altizer filed this mandamus petition while the action was pending in the Roanoke division. He sought an order transferring the case to the Charlottesville division.
Mandamus relief is available to attack a district court's order regarding a motion for change of venue. Ellicott Machine Corp. v. Modern Welding Co., 502 F.2d 178, 180-81 n. 4 (4th Cir.1974). However, mandamus relief will not be granted unless the petitioner has a clear right to the relief requested. In re First Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass'n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.1988). Altizer does not have a clear right, either by statute or otherwise, to have his case decided within a particular division of the Western District.* Therefore, we deny the petition.
Although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not significantly aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED.