In Re: David Smith v. , 692 F. App'x 154 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-2379
In re: DAVID LEE SMITH,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
(No. 5:16-ct-03297-FL)
Submitted: June 22, 2017 Decided: June 26, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Lee Smith, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Lee Smith petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the
district court to issue a summons to federal government officials and directing them to
reduce Smith’s state sentence to time served. We conclude that Smith is not entitled to
mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary
circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v.
Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available
only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. &
Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Mandamus may not be used as a
substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
Further, this court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state
officials, Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg Cty., 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir.
1969), and does not have jurisdiction to review final state court orders, Dist. of Columbia
Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983).
The relief sought by Smith is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly,
although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of
mandamus. 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
2