In re: McClelland v. , 55 F. App'x 143 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7425
In Re: STEPHEN E. MCCLELLAND,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Submitted: November 5, 2002 Decided: January 22, 2003
Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephen E. McClelland, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Stephen E. McClelland petitions for a writ of mandamus. He
seeks an order compelling the state court to consider an untimely
appeal from a criminal conviction.
Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a
clear right to the relief sought. See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan
Assn., 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a
drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary
circumstances. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S.
394, 402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987).
Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. See In re
United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). This court
does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state
officials, see Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, 411
F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969), and does not have jurisdiction to
review state court orders, see District of Columbia Court of
Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983).
The relief sought by McClelland 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 the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2