In re: Isaac Lee Woods; Regina Bailey Woods

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1359
In Re: ISAAC LEE WOODS; REGINA BAILEY WOODS,
Petitioners.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:05-cr-00131-FL)
Submitted: May 10, 2010 Decided: June 10, 2010
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Isaac Lee Woods, Regina Bailey Woods, Petitioners Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Isaac Lee Woods and Regina Bailey Woods petition for a
writ of mandamus seeking an order directing that Chief Judge
Flanagan recuse herself. We conclude the Woods are not entitled
to mandamus relief.
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).
We note this is the third time the Woods have raised
this issue in this court. See United States v. Woods, Nos. 07-
4485/4486, 2008 WL 4499976 (4th Cir. Oct. 8, 2008) (unpublished)
(recusal issue raised in their pro se supplemental brief);
United States v. Woods, Nos. 08-8562, 09-6271/6671/6953, 2009 WL
2480808 (4th Cir. Aug. 14, 2009) (unpublished) (an appeal from
the district court order denying their motion for recusal).
Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re
Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). Nor
have the Woods shown they are entitled to the relief sought by
way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of
mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

-- 2 of 3 --

3
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITION DENIED

-- 3 of 3 --