In Re: Momolu Sirleaf


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999818193-2], denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999863160-2]; denying Motion for injunctive relief pending appeal (FRAP 8) [999958485-3]; denying Motion to extend filing time [999958485-2] Originating case number: 3:15-cv-00301-MHL-RCY,3:15-cv-00552-MHL-RCY,3:15-cv-00339-MHL-RCY,3:15-cv-00338-MHL-RCY,3:15-cv-00340-MHL-RCY Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999991690]. Mailed to: John King, Aaron Lewis, Eric Prosha, Peter Rosas, Ryan Sessoms, Momolu Sirleaf & Ray Watson. [16-1531]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-1531 Doc: 37 Filed: 12/21/2016 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1531 In Re: MOMOLU V.S. SIRLEAF; ERIC L. PROSHA; JOHN AARON LEWIS; PETER ROSAS; RYAN SESSOMS; RAY WATSON, KING; Petitioners. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:15-cv-00301-MHL-RCY; 3:15-cv-00552-MHL-RCY; 3:15-cv-00339MHL-RCY; 3:15-cv-00338-MHL-RCY; 3:15-cv-00340-MHL-RCY) Submitted: November 30, 2016 Decided: December 21, 2016 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Momolu V.S. Sirleaf; Eric L. Prosha; John King; Aaron Lewis; Peter Rosas; Ryan Sessoms; Ray Watson, Petitioners Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-1531 Doc: 37 Filed: 12/21/2016 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Petitioners petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court judge to recuse herself in their cases. 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). The party seeking issuance of the writ must have no other adequate means to attain relief, and he bears the burden of showing that his right to the writ is clear and indisputable. See Moussaoui, 333 F.3d at 517; In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). We conclude that Petitioners fail to make the required showing. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus, as amended, and the pending motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 2

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?