to explain that, despite the novelty, importance, and sensitive nature of the issue, Vidrine is not entitled to mandamus at this time, primarily because he did not apply for such y of mandamus is a drastic one, to be invoked only in extraordinary situations. The writ has traditionally been used in the federal courts only to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so. Only exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial usurpation of power will justify the invocation of this extraordinary remedy. Mandamus traditionally is not to be used as a substitute for an appeal, or to control the decision of the trial court in discretionary matters.” In re Amy Unknown, 701 F.3d 749, 757 (5th Cir.2012) (internal citations, quotation marks, and alterations omi th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, mandamus is not appropriate in
holding that the plaintiffs argument rebutting the defendants legitimate nondiscriminatory reason on the plaintiffs discrimination claim also rebutted the defendants reason on the plaintiffs retaliation claim because they were the same holding that a class action is not mooted by the intervening resolution of the controversy as to the named plaintiffs holding that neither the plaintiffs charge of discrimination nor employers failuretomitigate defense put the plaintiffs mental or physical condition in controversy under rule 35 holding that the plaintiffs were not prevailing parties entitled to attorneys fees for successfully securing a remand of the attorneys fees issue because the ruling was unrelated to the merits of the plaintiffs claim and the issue was not significant nor a benefit the plaintiffs sought in bringing their action holding that plaintiffs allegations that police officers moved into plaintiffs unoccupied house without their consent broke the new locks that the plaintiffs put on their house filed unsupported charges against the plaintiffs perjured themselves in testifying against the plaintiffs and threatened physical violence against them did not sufficiently shock the conscience so as to violate substantive due process