Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

In re: Thomas, 10-1614 (2010)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 10-1614 Visitors: 2
Filed: Jun. 30, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1614 In Re: RANDY L. THOMAS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition. (3:07-cv-00200-GCM) Submitted: June 24, 2010 Decided: June 30, 2010 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randy L. Thomas, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Randy L. Thomas petitions for a writ of mandamus and pro
More
                              UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 10-1614


In Re:   RANDY L. THOMAS,

                Petitioner.




         On Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition.
                         (3:07-cv-00200-GCM)


Submitted:   June 24, 2010                  Decided:   June 30, 2010


Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.


Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Randy L. Thomas, Petitioner Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

            Randy L. Thomas petitions for a writ of mandamus and

prohibition seeking review of a district court order imposing a

prefiling injunction in his action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983   (2006).       See    Thomas   v.    Fulton,       No.   3:07-cv-00200-GCM

(W.D.N.C.    Feb.   13,   2008),    aff’d,     284    F.    App’x    45   (4th   Cir.

2008).     We conclude that Thomas is not entitled to relief.

            Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used

only in extraordinary circumstances.                Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court,

426 U.S. 394
, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 
333 F.3d 509
, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003).                Mandamus may not be used as a

substitute for appeal.          In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 
503 F.3d 351
, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).          Further, mandamus relief is available

only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought.

In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 
860 F.2d 135
, 138 (4th Cir.

1988).

            The relief sought by Thomas is not available by way of

mandamus.      Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus and

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

                                        2

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer