In Re: Jerry Sharpe

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999645238-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999639384-2] Originating case number: 5:14-ct-03269-F Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999683887]. Mailed to: J. Sharpe. [15-1910]

Appeal: 15-1910

Doc: 6

Filed: 10/22/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1910

In re:

JERRY WAYNE SHARPE,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(5:14-ct-03269-F)

Submitted:

October 20, 2015

Decided:

October 22, 2015

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry Wayne Sharpe, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1910

Doc: 6

Filed: 10/22/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Jerry Wayne Sharpe petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking
an

order

compelling

the

district

court

to

issue

an

order

requiring that Judge L. Todd Burke of the Yadkin County Superior
Court

hold

innocence.

an

evidentiary

hearing

on

his

claim

of

actual

We conclude that Sharpe 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).

This court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus

relief against state officials.

Gurley v. Superior Court of

Mecklenburg Cnty., 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969).
Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma
pauperis,

we

dispense

with

contentions

deny

are

oral

the

petition

argument

adequately

for

writ

because

presented

in

of

the
the

mandamus.

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

2