In Re: David Smith v. ( 2016 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-2069
In re: DAVID LEE SMITH,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
(5:16-ct-03229-BO)
Submitted: December 15, 2016 Decided: December 19, 2016
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, 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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 enter an order directing a
North Carolina official to release him. 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
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3