Rochester v. Papermate Paper Corp.

UNPUBLISHED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
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
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,
3
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
4
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
5
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
6