In re: Shahsultan Jaffer

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 26-1478 Doc: 16 Filed: 07/22/2026 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 26-1478

In re: SHAHSULTAN JAFFER,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. (5:17-cv-00581-FL)

Submitted: June 23, 2026 Decided: July 22, 2026

Before THACKER, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shahsultan Jaffer, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 26-1478 Doc: 16 Filed: 07/22/2026 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Shahsultan Jaffer petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order vacating certain

district court orders, disqualifying the district court judge, and ordering the provision of

healthcare services. She has also moved to expedite the proceedings, for an emergency

order continuing certain healthcare services, and for judicial notice and an immediate

ruling. We conclude that Jaffer is not entitled to mandamus relief.

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); In re Murphy-Brown,

LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Mandamus relief is available only when the

petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and “has no other adequate means to attain

the relief [she] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (citation modified). Furthermore,

mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal, In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503

F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007), and this court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus

relief against state officials, Gurley v. Superior Ct. of Mecklenburg Cnty., 411 F.2d 586,

587 (4th Cir. 1969).

The relief sought by Jaffer is not available by way of mandamus. First, Jaffer

impermissibly seeks to use mandamus as a substitute for appeal. Second, to the extent that

Jaffer seeks a writ of mandamus directly ordering the North Carolina Department of Health

and Human Services to provide her with healthcare services, this court lacks jurisdiction

to grant such a writ. Third, the district judge’s rulings against Jaffer, without more, are

insufficient to warrant recusal, and we discern no clear and indisputable error in the district

court’s orders enforcing its finding that Jaffer was not a proper party to the underlying class

2 USCA4 Appeal: 26-1478 Doc: 16 Filed: 07/22/2026 Pg: 3 of 3

action. See United States v. Lentz, 524 F.3d 501, 530 (4th Cir. 2008) (noting that “judicial

rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion” (internal

quotation marks omitted)); In re Moore, 955 F.3d 384, 388 (4th Cir. 2020) (noting that

mandamus petitioner must establish “that [s]he has a clear and indisputable right to . . .

relief” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. Additionally, we deny as

moot Jaffer’s motions to expedite, for an emergency order continuing healthcare services,

and for judicial notice and an immediate ruling. We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED