In Re Thomas Ex Rel. A.T. , 386 F. App'x 452 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1614
In Re: RANDY L. THOMAS,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition.
(3:07-cv-00200-GCM)
Submitted: June 24, 2010 Decided: June 30, 2010
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randy L. Thomas, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
prefiling injunction in his action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2006). See Thomas v. Fulton, No. 3:07-cv-00200-GCM
(W.D.N.C. Feb. 13, 2008), aff’d, 284 F. App’x 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 (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
2