Case ID: f-appx_671/html/0879-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

IN RE: Momolu V.S. SIRLEAF; Eric L. Prosha; John King; Aaron Lewis; Peter Rosas; Ryan Sessoms; Ray Watson, Petitioners.
    No. 16-1531
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: November 30, 2016
    Decided: December 21, 2016
    Momolu V.S. Sirleaf; Eric L. Prosha; John King; Aaron Lewis; Peter Rosas; Ryan Sessoms; Ray Watson, Petitioners Pro Se.
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Petitioners petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court judge to recuse herself in their cases. 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, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). The party seeking issuance of the writ must have no other adequate means to attain relief, and he bears the burden of showing that his right to the writ is clear and indisputable. See Moussaoui, 333 F.3d at 517; In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). We conclude that Petitioners fail to make the required showing.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus, as amended, and the pending motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED