Case ID: f-appx_386/html/0449-01.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: Randy L. THOMAS, Petitioner.
    No. 10-1614.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 24, 2010.
    Decided: June 30, 2010.
    Randy L. Thomas, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
   Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 prefil-ing injunction in his action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006). See Thomas v. Fulton, No. 3:07-cv-00200-GCM, 2008 WL 413855 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 13, 2008), aff'd, 284 Fed.Appx. 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, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (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.