UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1316
In Re: RANDY L. THOMAS,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:07-cv-00200-GCM)
Submitted: May 1, 2009 Decided: June 10, 2009
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randy L. Thomas, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Randy L. Thomas petitions for a writ of mandamus,
seeking an order vacating the district court’s February 13, 2008
order imposing a prefiling injunction, compelling the state
court to vacate a child custody order, and addressing claims
raised in prior actions. We conclude that Thomas is not
entitled to mandamus relief.
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). Further,
mandamus is a drastic remedy and should be used only in
extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,
426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th
Cir. 1987).
Mandamus may not be used as “a substitute for appeal.”
In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979).
This court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief
against state officials, Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg
County, 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969), and does not have
jurisdiction to review final state court orders, District of
Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983).
The relief sought by Thomas is not available by way of
mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We
2
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