In Re: David Smith


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion dispositions in opinion--denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999994453-2], denying Motion to supplement writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999970232-2]; denying Motions for other relief [1000004893-2], [999994010-2], [999981835-2]. Originating case number: 5:15-hc-02128-D. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000033273].. [16-2323]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-2323 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/01/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2323 In Re: DAVID LEE SMITH, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:15-hc-02128-D) Submitted: February 27, 2017 Decided: March 1, 2017 Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, 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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 16-2323 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/01/2017 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: David Lee Smith petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order prohibiting the district court from dismissing Smith’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion filed in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) proceeding and state sentence. directing the court to reduce Smith’s Smith also seeks an order directing a state corrections 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. (1983). 2 Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 Appeal: 16-2323 Doc: 7 The mandamus. Filed: 03/01/2017 relief sought by Accordingly, motions, including petition and the Smith’s Pg: 3 of 3 Smith we is deny mandamus motions for not all available pending petition release, appeal, and for an en banc determination. by way petitions and of and supplemental release pending We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 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?