UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1059
In re: RANDY L. THOMAS,
Petitioner.
On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition
(3:07-cv-00130-GCM)
Submitted: April 19, 2012 Decided: April 25, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, 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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 and a
writ of prohibition, seeking an order vacating the district
court’s February 13, 2008, order imposing a prefiling
injunction, enjoining state officials and employees from certain
conduct, compelling the state court to vacate a child custody
order, addressing claims raised in prior actions, and imposing
monetary sanctions. We conclude that Thomas is not entitled to
mandamus or prohibition 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). 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). Likewise, “a writ of prohibition is a
drastic and extraordinary remedy which should be granted only
when the petitioner has shown his right to the writ to be clear
and undisputable and that the actions of the court were a clear
abuse of discretion.” In re Vargas, 723 F.2d 1461, 1468 (10th
Cir. 1983). Neither a writ of mandamus nor a writ of
prohibition may be used as a substitute for appeal. Id.
(prohibition); In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353
(4th Cir. 2007) (mandamus).
2
The relief sought by Thomas is not available by way of
mandamus or prohibition. Accordingly, although we grant leave
to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the 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