In Re: James Roudabush, Jr. v. ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1301
In re: JAMES LESTER ROUDABUSH, JR.,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(No. 1:13-cr-00195-CMH-1)
Submitted: June 18, 2015 Decided: June 22, 2015
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Lester Roudabush, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
district court to provide him with papers he believes he needs
to file a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) or to appoint
counsel to represent him. * 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 (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). Mandamus may not be used as a
substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d
351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
The relief sought by Roudabush 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.
*
In the petition, Roudabush also states that the district
court has not ruled on his February 2015 motion seeking a copy
of the trial transcript and presentence report or, in the
alternative, appointment of counsel. To the extent Roudabush
seeks an order from this court directing the district court to
act on his motion, we find that the present record does not
reveal undue delay in the district court.
2
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
3