In Re: James Roudabush, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999552808-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999552807-2]. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999587622]. Mailed to: James Roudabush, Jr.. [15-1306]

Appeal: 15-1306

Doc: 6

Filed: 05/21/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1306

In re: JAMES LESTER ROUDABUSH, JR.,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Submitted:

May 19, 2015

Decided: May 21, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Lester Roudabush, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1306

Doc: 6

Filed: 05/21/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
James

Lester

Roudabush,

Jr.,

petitions

for

a

writ

of

mandamus, seeking an order from this court directing federal
officials to return to him legal paperwork relative to several
ongoing civil actions and to refrain from interfering in those
actions

or

any

other

actions

he

might

file

in

the

future.

We conclude that Roudabush is not entitled to mandamus 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.
135,

138

(4th

In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d
Cir.

1988).

substitute for appeal.

Mandamus

may

not

be

used

as

a

In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d

351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).

The relief sought by Roudabush is not

available by way of mandamus.

Accordingly, although we grant

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for a
writ of mandamus.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
2