UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1715
In re: JAMES LESTER ROUDABUSH, JR.,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Submitted: August 25, 2016 Decided: August 29, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Lester Roudabush, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Lester Roudabush, Jr., petitions for a writ of
mandamus, seeking an order from this court directing the
Secretary to the Fourth Circuit Judicial Council to rescind an
order prohibiting Roudabush’s filing of judicial complaints
under 28 U.S.C. § 351 (2012) without first obtaining leave of
the Chief Judge and the Clerk of this court to file all papers
Roudabush submits to the court pursuant to that statute.
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). Mandamus may not be used as a
substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d
351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). 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).
The relief sought by Roudabush is not available by way of
mandamus because Roudabush fails to establish any clear right to
relief from this court in the form of an order directing the
rescission of a Judicial Council order and that the Clerk of
this court file all papers Roudabush submits pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 351. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ
2
of mandamus. 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
3