UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-2250
In re: DEBORAH BORDEAUX,
Petitioner.
On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus. (4:09-cv-70013-TLW)
Submitted: June 21, 2010 Decided: July 9, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Deborah Bordeaux, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Deborah Bordeaux petitions for a writ of mandamus,
alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on her 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. She seeks an order
from this court directing the district court to issue a decision
on the motion within twenty days of the date of this order. She
also seeks an order directing that the judge should recuse
himself and that the district court should inform the Internal
Revenue Service (“IRS”) that the forfeiture amount was not
income.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used
only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States
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). Mandamus may not be
used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp.,
503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
We find there has been no undue delay in the district
court with regard to reaching a decision on the § 2255 motion.
We further find Bordeaux’s request that this court order the
district court to assign a new judge is moot. After Bordeaux
filed the petition for a writ of mandamus, the case was
2
reassigned. We also find Bordeaux fails to show she has a clear
right to an order from this court directing the district court
to inform the IRS that the forfeiture amount was not income.
Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, we deny the mandamus 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