In Re: David Smith

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999979162-2]; denying Motion for initial hearing en banc (FRAP 35) [1000022895-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999979159-2]. Originating case number: 5:16-ct-03229-BO Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000043452]. Mailed to: David Smith. [16-2371]

Appeal: 16-2371

Doc: 5

Filed: 03/16/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2371

In re:

DAVID LEE SMITH,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Submitted:

March 14, 2017

Before FLOYD and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

March 16, 2017

DAVIS,

Senior

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Lee Smith, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-2371

Doc: 5

Filed: 03/16/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
David Lee Smith petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an
order directing the district court to reopen his civil case,
grant him in forma pauperis status, and adjudicate his civil
complaint.

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.

In

re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
The relief sought by Smith is not available by way of mandamus.
Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, we deny Smith’s motion for an en banc determination
and deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with
contentions
this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

2