In re: Kent Bell ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1504 Doc: 11 Filed: 07/25/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-1504
In re: KENT BELL,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. (1:21-cv-00107-GLR)
Submitted: July 20, 2023 Decided: July 25, 2023
Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kent Bell, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1504 Doc: 11 Filed: 07/25/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Kent Bell petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking relief from several alleged errors
that occurred in his state criminal proceeding. We conclude that Bell is not entitled to
mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary
circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); In re Murphy-Brown,
LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Further, mandamus relief is available only when
the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and “has no other adequate means to
attain the relief [he] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (alteration and internal
quotation marks omitted). This court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief
against state officials, Gurley v. Superior Ct. of Mecklenburg Cnty., 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th
Cir. 1969), and does not have jurisdiction to review final state court orders, D.C. Ct. of
Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983).
The relief sought by Bell is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, 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