In Re: Julian Rochester

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion leave to proceed plra [998679864-2] in 11-1931, denying Motion leave to proceed plra [998666607-2] in 11-7088; denying Motion for writ of prohibition (FRAP 21) [998759268-2]; denying Motion for extraordinary writ under FRAP 21 [998669852-2] in 11-1931; denying Motion to waive [998682963-2] in 11-1931 Originating case number: 2:97-cv-03924-HMH,2:98-cv-00146-WBT,2:08-cv-03488-HMH-RSC,2:08-cv-03577-HMH-RSC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998807572]. Mailed to: Rochester. [11-1931, 11-7088]

Appeal: 11-1931

Document: 17

Date Filed: 03/12/2012

Page: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED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-00146WBT; 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

Appeal: 11-1931

Document: 17

Date Filed: 03/12/2012

Page: 2 of 6

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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Appeal: 11-1931

Document: 17

Date Filed: 03/12/2012

Page: 3 of 6

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).
party

seeking

mandamus

relief

carries

the

heavy

burden

The
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

Appeal: 11-1931

35

Document: 17

(1980).

Date Filed: 03/12/2012

Federal

courts

action by state officials.

have

Page: 4 of 6

no

general

power

to

compel

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).
requisite showing.

Rochester has not made the

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.
reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
that

the

district

court

correctly

determined

We have

We conclude

that

Rochester

failed to state a claim with respect to any of the conditions of
confinement about which he complained.
511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994).

See Farmer v. Brennan,

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

Appeal: 11-1931

Document: 17

Date Filed: 03/12/2012

Page: 5 of 6

orders -- and has been granted relief in none of them.
cases

typically

share

recurring

themes:

for

instance,

The
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
Rochester’s
fees

and

December
pending

directed

20,

motions
him

to

2011,

we

to

proceed

show

cause

deferred
without
why

he

action

prepayment
should

not

on
of
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.
945 (4th Cir. 1997).

See In re Vincent, 105 F.3d 943,

We also enjoin Rochester from filing any

civil appeal, petition, or motion in this court unless: (i) the
5

Appeal: 11-1931

Document: 17

Date Filed: 03/12/2012

Page: 6 of 6

sanctions are fully paid; and (ii) a district or circuit judge
has

certified

frivolous.

that

the

appeal,

petition,

or

motion

is

not

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
before

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
DISMISSED

6