Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied

4th Circuit Daily Opinions

Filed March 2nd, 2026

Detected March 3rd, 2026

Summary

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Ubong Christopher Ubokudom. The petition sought to compel the district court to appoint counsel for his daughter and rule on pending motions for injunctive relief. The court found no undue delay or entitlement to mandamus relief.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied a petition for a writ of mandamus in the case of In re: Ubong Christopher Ubokudom. The petitioner sought to compel the district court to appoint counsel for his minor daughter and to rule on pending motions for injunctive relief in a related civil action against Target Corp. The court found that the petitioners failed to demonstrate undue delay by the district court or that they were otherwise entitled to the extraordinary remedy of mandamus, which cannot be used as a substitute for appeal.

This decision means the petitioner's requests for the appointment of counsel and injunctive relief have been rejected at the appellate level. As the opinion is unpublished, it does not set binding precedent. Regulated entities, particularly those involved in litigation, should note that mandamus relief is rarely granted and requires a clear showing of entitlement and lack of other adequate remedies. No specific compliance actions are required for regulated entities based on this denial.

Source document (simplified)

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH C IRCUIT No. 25-2449 In re: UBONG CHRIS TOPHER UBOKUDO M; J., Petitioners. On Petition for Writ of Manda mus to the Uni ted States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Colu mbia. (3:25- cv -12972- SAL - PJG) Submitted: February 2 6, 2026 Decided: March 2, 2026 Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLE BAUM, Circuit Judge s, and FLOYD, Senior Circui t Judge. Petition denied by unp ublished per curiam op inion. Ubong Christopher Ub okudom, Petitione r Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding prec edent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM: Ubong Christopher Ubokudom, on be half o f himself and his m inor daughter, petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging th at the district court erred when it denied his motion to appoint counsel for his daughter an d that it has not rul ed on their pending motions for injunctive relief in Ubokudom v. Tar get Corp., No. 3:25 - cv - 12972- SAL - PJG (D.S.C., filed Oct. 14, 2025). Petitioners seek an order d irecting the district co urt to appoint counsel and to grant various for ms of injunctive relief i n their pending civi l action. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy a nd should be used only i n extraordinary circumstances. Chene y v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); I n re Murphy -Brown, LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 79 5 (4th Cir. 2018). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a cle ar right to the relief sought and “has n o other adequate means to attain the relief [he] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (citation modified). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute f or appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). The present record does not reveal u ndue delay in the dist rict court. Moreover, Petitioners fail to show that they are otherwi se entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny Petitioners’ pending motio ns to expe dite, to clarify, for leave to file digital media, for a stay of the district court procee dings, and for electronic service and protective treatment of email ad dress, and we deny the p etition for writ of man damus. We dispens e with oral argument because the facts a nd legal contentions are adequately presented in th e materials before this co urt and argument w ould not aid the decisi onal process. PETITION DENIED