In re: Randy Thoma

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [998763872-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [998763869-2] Originating case number: 3:07-cv-00130-GCM. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998839937]. Mailed to: Randy Thomas. [12-1059]

Appeal: 12-1059

Document: 6

Date Filed: 04/25/2012

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1059

In re:

RANDY L. THOMAS,

Petitioner.

On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition
(3:07-cv-00130-GCM)

Submitted:

April 19, 2012

Decided:

April 25, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randy L. Thomas, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-1059

Document: 6

Date Filed: 04/25/2012

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Randy L. Thomas petitions for a writ of mandamus and a
writ

of

court’s

prohibition,
February

seeking

13,

an

2008,

order

order

vacating
imposing

the
a

district
prefiling

injunction, enjoining state officials and employees from certain
conduct, compelling the state court to vacate a child custody
order, addressing claims raised in prior actions, and imposing
monetary sanctions.

We conclude that Thomas is not entitled to

mandamus or prohibition 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).

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).

Likewise, “a writ of prohibition is a

drastic and extraordinary remedy which should be granted only
when the petitioner has shown his right to the writ to be clear
and undisputable and that the actions of the court were a clear
In re Vargas, 723 F.2d 1461, 1468 (10th

abuse of discretion.”
Cir.

1983).

prohibition

Neither
may

be

a

used

writ
as

of
a

mandamus

substitute

nor
for

a

writ

appeal.

of
Id.

(prohibition); In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353
(4th Cir. 2007) (mandamus).
2

Appeal: 12-1059

Document: 6

Date Filed: 04/25/2012

Page: 3 of 3

The relief sought by Thomas is not available by way of
mandamus or prohibition.

Accordingly, although we grant leave

to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition.

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

3