In Re: David Smith

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999962741-2] Originating case number: 5:16-ct-03229-BO. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999989490]. Mailed to: David Smith. [16-2069]

Appeal: 16-2069

Doc: 11

Filed: 12/19/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-2069

Doc: 11

Filed: 12/19/2016

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 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.
Lockheed

Martin

Corp.,

503

F.3d

351,

353

(4th

Cir.

In re
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
mandamus.

relief

sought

by

Smith

is

not

available

by

way

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
dispense

of

with

oral

argument

because
2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 16-2069

Doc: 11

contentions

are

Filed: 12/19/2016

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

3