In Re: Momolu Sirleaf

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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