Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-01359/USCOURTS-ca4-10-01359-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Isaac Lee Woods
Petitioner
Regina Bailey Woods
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1359

In Re: ISAAC LEE WOODS; REGINA BAILEY WOODS,

Petitioners.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:05-cr-00131-FL)

Submitted: May 10, 2010 Decided: June 10, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Isaac Lee Woods, Regina Bailey Woods, Petitioners Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-1359 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/10/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Isaac Lee Woods and Regina Bailey Woods petition for a 

writ of mandamus seeking an order directing that Chief Judge 

Flanagan recuse herself. We conclude the Woods are not entitled 

to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used

only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States 

Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. 

Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). 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). 

We note this is the third time the Woods have raised 

this issue in this court. See United States v. Woods, Nos. 07-

4485/4486, 2008 WL 4499976 (4th Cir. Oct. 8, 2008) (unpublished) 

(recusal issue raised in their pro se supplemental brief); 

United States v. Woods, Nos. 08-8562, 09-6271/6671/6953, 2009 WL 

2480808 (4th Cir. Aug. 14, 2009) (unpublished) (an appeal from 

the district court order denying their motion for recusal). 

Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re 

Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). Nor 

have the Woods shown they are entitled to the relief sought by 

way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of

mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

Appeal: 10-1359 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/10/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

PETITION DENIED

Appeal: 10-1359 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/10/2010 Pg: 3 of 3