Case Name: IN RE: James Lester ROUDABUSH, Jr., Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-29
Citations: 668 F. App'x 468
Docket Number: No. 16-1715
Parties: IN RE: James Lester ROUDABUSH, Jr., Petitioner.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 668
Pages: 468–469

Head Matter:
IN RE: James Lester ROUDABUSH, Jr., Petitioner.
No. 16-1715
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: August 25, 2016
Decided: August 29, 2016
James Lester Roudabush, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Lester Roudabush, Jr., petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order from this court directing the Secretary to the Fourth Circuit Judicial Council to rescind an order prohibiting Roudabush's filing of judicial complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 351 (2012) without first obtaining leave of the Chief Judge and the Clerk of this court to file all papers Roudabush submits to the court pursuant to that statute. We conclude that Roudabush is not entitled to mandamus 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 Roudabush is not available by way of mandamus because Roudabush fails to establish any clear right to relief from this court in the form of an order directing the rescission of a Judicial Council order and that the Clerk of this court file all papers Roudabush submits pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 351. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. 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