After spending a week straight researching and writing, I filed for petition of writ of mandamus and served it upon Judge Osteen on August 20th, 2025. These are rarely granted but I was left with no other options as the court has been delaying any rulings and avoiding the TRO request. A writ of mandamus is a remedy that can be used to compel a lower court to perform an act that is ministerial in nature and that the court has a clear duty to do under law or correct an action when an abuse of discretion has been made. When filing a petition for writ of mandamus, you must show that you have no other remedy available.
My petition covered both the 1983 claim and Fair Housing case as both cases have been stuck in procedural limbo for months. The district court refused to rule on motions that were necessary just to move the case forward including my request to compel the disclosure of judicial identities. Meanwhile opposing counsel was being granted repeated extensions and accommodations that I was consistently denied.
The purpose of my writ was simple. It was to compel the court to rule on matters it was legally obligated to address. This included my request for electronic filing access, which is something every represented party has by default, yet was denied to me without explanation. That denial alone created a major barrier, forcing me to file everything manually while the opposing side continued to use the court’s electronic system freely. I also sought to compel the district court to identify the unnamed judicial officers who had issued rulings in the state appellate proceedings. Without those names, I could not name the proper parties in my civil rights case, which meant the case could never advance on its merits.
The petition laid out a pattern of procedural manipulation and unequal enforcement of rules that I have described before as the “good boys club” mentality within certain courts. I documented how rulings were being issued by the clerk instead of the judge, how filings were being misclassified, and how orders were entered that did not correspond to any motion I had filed. I also explained how my ADA requests and correspondence with the court had gone unanswered, even when directly raising barriers that limited my ability to participate.
The mandamus filing was structured around the three requirements for this type of extraordinary relief. First that I had a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought. Second that the lower court had a duty to act. Third that there was no other adequate remedy available. Each point was supported by record evidence, federal case law, and statistical data I pulled from the Federal Judicial Center’s Integrated Database. Those statistics showed what I had already been experiencing firsthand, that pro se litigants face disproportionate procedural dismissals and almost no access to appellate relief. Over the last five years in the Fourth Circuit, more than 200 writs of mandamus had been filed in civil cases, and only one had been granted. None of those involved civil rights claims.
I did not file expecting to be the exception. I filed because I refused to let the system operate without accountability. My petition was not an attack on the judiciary. It was a call for integrity. When courts selectively apply their own rules or conceal who is making judicial decisions, it undermines the foundation of public trust. My filing sought not only to correct what had gone wrong in my cases but also to shine light on how deeply this culture of avoidance and protectionism runs within the courts themselves.
I made sure the petition was meticulous, thoroughly researched, fully cited, and respectfully written. Every statement was backed by evidence. I wanted the appellate judges to see that this was not about emotion or defiance. It was about the law being applied consistently, no matter who stands before the court. I even included a statement of good faith acknowledging that I understood the gravity of what I was asking but also explaining why I had no alternative.
Filing that writ marked a turning point. It was not just a procedural step. It was a statement. It said that I see what is happening and I am not afraid to document it. It said that even if the system refuses to fix itself, I am going to leave a record showing exactly how it failed to do so.