In Re: Larry Mitchell

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Petition for writ of mandamus denied [999915445-2] Originating case number: 5:16-ct-03057-D. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000006293]. Mailed to: L. Mitchell. [16-1959]

Appeal: 16-1959

Doc: 11

Filed: 01/19/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1959

In re:

LARRY RAY MITCHELL,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
(No. 5:16-ct-03057-D)

Submitted:

January 17, 2017

Decided:

January 19, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Ray Mitchell, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1959

Doc: 11

Filed: 01/19/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Larry Ray Mitchell petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking
an order for his immediate release.

We conclude that Mitchell

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), 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 Mitchell is not available by way of
mandamus.
mandamus.
legal

Accordingly,

we

deny

the

petition

for

writ

of

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions

are

adequately

2

presented

in

the

materials

Appeal: 16-1959

before

Doc: 11

this

court

Filed: 01/19/2017

and

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.

PETITION DENIED

3