4th Cir.

In re CAUSTIN LEE MCLAUGHLIN

May 20, 2026 ·26-1273 ·Per Curiam · By Aisha Johnson

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by a pro se litigant. The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate the extraordinary circumstances required for such relief.

Background

Caustin Lee McLaughlin, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Fourth Circuit. He sought an order directing the United States District Court for the District of Maryland to take various actions in a civil suit he filed against Jeffrey Callicutt. The petition also included exhibits and was docketed as an emergency motion for injunctive relief pending appeal.

The court’s reasoning

The court concluded that McLaughlin was not entitled to mandamus relief because he failed to assert the requisite extraordinary circumstances. The court noted that McLaughlin could seek relief in the district court by curing filing deficiencies, such as applying to proceed in forma pauperis or paying the filing fee. The court further held that mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal regarding orders dismissing the suit without prejudice. Additionally, the court stated it lacks jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials or to review final state court orders.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances.

Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004)

What it means going forward

The petition for mandamus and the request for emergency injunctive relief were denied. The court dispensed with oral argument.