In Re: Roden v.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
In Re: STEFANIE A. RODEN; In Re: JAMES D. HABURN, Petitioners.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (7:04-cv-00336-jct)
Submitted: August 30, 2007
September 5, 2007
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stefanie A. Roden, James D. Haburn, Petitioners Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Stefanie Roden and James Haburn petition for writ of mandamus asking this court to resolve their civil action, which is currently pending in the district court. We conclude that
Petitioners are not entitled to the requested relief. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Further, mandamus is a used in extraordinary
Ass'n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). drastic remedy and should only be
Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394,
402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). To obtain mandamus relief, a petitioner must show that: (1) he has a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought; (2) the responding party has a clear duty to do the specific act requested; (3) the act requested is an official act or duty; (4) there are no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires; and (5) the issuance of the writ will effect right and justice in the circumstances. In re Braxton, 258 F.3d 250, 261 (4th Cir.
2001) (quotations and citation omitted). The relief sought by Roden and Haburn is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed
in forma pauperis, we deny the motion for appointment of counsel, and we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. oral argument because the facts and legal We dispense with contentions are
- 2 -
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
- 3 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?