In re: Dennis Ray Grave
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999933436-2]; granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999973699-2] Originating case number: 1:16-cv-01131-JCC-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000054411]. Mailed to: Graves. [16-2081]
Appeal: 16-2081
Doc: 14
Filed: 04/03/2017
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-2081
In re: DENNIS RAY GRAVES,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Submitted:
March 30, 2017
(1:16-cv-01131-JCC-JFA)
Decided:
April 3, 2017
Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dennis Ray Graves, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-2081
Doc: 14
Filed: 04/03/2017
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Dennis Ray Graves petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking
an order directing the state court to vacate his convictions and
sentence.
We conclude that Graves 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).
court
does
not
have
jurisdiction
to
grant
mandamus
This
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 relief sought by Graves in not available by way of
mandamus.
Accordingly,
although
we
grant
Graves
leave
to
proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of
mandamus.
legal
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
are
adequately
2
presented
in
the
materials
Appeal: 16-2081
before
Doc: 14
this
court
Filed: 04/03/2017
and
Pg: 3 of 3
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional
process.
PETITION DENIED
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?