In re: David Smith

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motions for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999751351-2], [999816689-2]; granting Motions to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999769023-2], [999816695-2]; denying Motion for bail/release pending appeal (Local Rule 9(a) and (b)) [999781907-2]; denying Motions to remand case [999781908-2], [999791799-2], [999832041-2]. Originating case number: 5:15-hc-02128-D. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999836752]. Mailed to: Petitioner. [16-1124]

Appeal: 16-1124

Doc: 18

Filed: 05/31/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1124

In Re:

DAVID LEE SMITH,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(5:15-hc-02128-D)

Submitted:

May 26, 2016

Decided:

May 31, 2016

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit
Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Lee Smith, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1124

Doc: 18

Filed: 05/31/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
David Lee Smith petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an
order directing the district court to enter an order vacating
his state criminal judgment.

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).

To

the extent Smith seeks an order directing state officials to
act, 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
mandamus.
mandamus.

relief

sought

Accordingly,

by

Smith

we

deny

is

not

the

available

petition

by

for

way

of

writ

of

We grant permission to proceed in forma pauperis and
2

Appeal: 16-1124

deny

Doc: 18

Smith’s

dispense

Filed: 05/31/2016

motions

with

contentions

are

oral

for

bail

argument

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

and

to

because

presented

in

remand
the
the

the

facts

case.

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

3