In Re: Momolu Sirleaf v. ( 2016 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1531
In Re: MOMOLU V.S. SIRLEAF; ERIC L. PROSHA; JOHN KING;
AARON LEWIS; PETER ROSAS; RYAN SESSOMS; RAY WATSON,
Petitioners.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(3:15-cv-00301-MHL-RCY; 3:15-cv-00552-MHL-RCY; 3:15-cv-00339-
MHL-RCY; 3:15-cv-00338-MHL-RCY; 3:15-cv-00340-MHL-RCY)
Submitted: November 30, 2016 Decided: December 21, 2016
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit
Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Momolu V.S. Sirleaf; Eric L. Prosha; John King; Aaron Lewis;
Peter Rosas; Ryan Sessoms; Ray Watson, Petitioners Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Petitioners petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an
order directing the district court judge to recuse herself in
their cases. 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). The party seeking issuance of
the writ must have no other adequate means to attain relief, and
he bears the burden of showing that his right to the writ is
clear and indisputable. See Moussaoui, 333 F.3d at 517; In re
Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). We conclude that
Petitioners fail to make the required showing.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus,
as amended, and the pending motion. 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
2