UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1931

In Re: JULIAN E. ROCHESTER, a/k/a Julian Edward Rochester,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(2:97-cv-03924-HMH; 2:08-cv-03488-HMH-RSC; 2:98-cv-00146-

WBT; 2:08-cv-03577-HMH-RSC)

No. 11-7088

JULIAN E. ROCHESTER,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

PAPERMATE PAPER CORP; MARLBORO HOSPITAL; SCDC; ASBESTOS 

SUPER FUND; GEORGIA-PACIFIC PAPER CORPORATION, a/k/a 

Georgia-Pacific Paper Corp,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. J. Michelle Childs, District 

Judge. (8:11-cv-01782-JMC)

Submitted: February 29, 2012 Decided: March 12, 2012
2

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Julian Edward Rochester, Petitioner/Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

In No. 11-1931, frequent litigant Julian Rochester 

petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking to set aside two state 

criminal judgments. In No. 11-7088, Rochester appeals the 

district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) 

action. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss both actions as 

frivolous.

Additionally, Rochester has persisted in filing 

frivolous appeals, motions, and petitions in this court. He 

failed to respond to our order to show cause why he should not 

be sanctioned for such abusive behavior. Accordingly, we now 

impose sanctions on Rochester for this conduct.

I

In his mandamus petition, Rochester seeks an order 

setting aside two state criminal judgments on the ground that 

the state court was without jurisdiction to enter the judgments. 

Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary 

situations. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 

402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). The 

party seeking mandamus relief carries the heavy burden of 

showing that he has no other adequate means to attain the relief 

he desires and that his entitlement to such relief is clear and 

indisputable. Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 
4

35 (1980). Federal courts have no general power to compel 

action by state officials. Davis v. Lansing, 851 F.2d 72, 74 

(2d Cir. 1988); Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg Cnty., 

411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969). Rochester has not made the 

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis and dismiss his petition for a writ of mandamus

as frivolous.

In No. 11-7088, Rochester appeals the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We conclude 

that the district court correctly determined that Rochester 

failed to state a claim with respect to any of the conditions of 

confinement about which he complained. See Farmer v. Brennan, 

511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). We note that the corporate defendants 

are not state actors amenable to suit under § 1983, see West v. 

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988), and that certain of Rochester’s 

claims are barred by the applicable three-year statute of 

limitations, see S.C. Code Ann. § 15-3-530(5); Wilson v. Garcia, 

471 U.S. 261, 276 (1985). Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal as frivolous. 

II

Rochester has filed at least twenty-nine cases in this 

court -- both original actions and appeals from district court 
5

orders -- and has been granted relief in none of them. The 

cases typically share recurring themes: for instance, he 

contends that he is on “kidnapped status;” he has been held 

beyond his release date; and he is being “tortured” in a variety 

of ways. In In re Rochester, 292 F. App’x 226, 227 (2008), we 

warned Rochester that, if he continued his practice of raising 

repetitive claims, we would issue “an order to show cause why a 

prefiling injunction should not be entered against him.” 

On December 20, 2011, we deferred action on 

Rochester’s pending motions to proceed without prepayment of 

fees and directed him to show cause why he should not be 

sanctioned for filing frivolous appeals, petitions, and motions 

and why he should not be enjoined from filing further appeals, 

petitions and motions in this court until such sanctions are 

paid and a district court judge or this court finds that the 

appeal, petition, or motion is not frivolous. See Fed. R. App. 

P. 38 (permitting sanctions after notice and an opportunity to 

respond). Rochester did not respond to our order.

In light of Rochester’s utter disregard for the 

limited resources of this court, we order him to pay sanctions 

in the amount of $500, payable to the clerk of this court, as we 

have done in similar cases. See In re Vincent, 105 F.3d 943, 

945 (4th Cir. 1997). We also enjoin Rochester from filing any 

civil appeal, petition, or motion in this court unless: (i) the 
6

sanctions are fully paid; and (ii) a district or circuit judge 

has certified that the appeal, petition, or motion is not 

frivolous. Any filing that does not meet these requirements 

will not be placed on the court’s docket. 

III

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.

DISMISSED