In Re: David Smith
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]
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UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?