In Re: Lester Ruston ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1741
In re: LESTER JON RUSTON
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(No. 5:12-hc-02090-BO)
Submitted: August 16, 2012 Decided: August 20, 2012
Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lester Jon Ruston, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lester Ruston petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking
an order preventing Attorney General Eric Holder and others from
allegedly depriving Ruston of due process and committing various
inappropriate or illegal acts against him. He also seeks an
order preventing future proceedings pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4243(2006). Ruston further alleges that the district court has
unduly delayed in acting on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 &
Supp. 2012) petition and seeks an order requiring the court’s
response. We conclude that Ruston 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). 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).
With regard to Ruston’s claims related to due process,
inappropriate or illegal activities, and future competency
proceedings, we conclude that Ruston has not established
entitlement to mandamus relief. Although cognizant of the
requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (2006), we further conclude
that there has been no undue delay in the district court.
2
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