Farewell v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Filing 2

OPINION. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 11/14/2014. (tvt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
MARK R. FAREWELL,
Petitioner,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 7:14CV00601
OPINION
By: James P. Jones
United States District Judge

Mark R. Farewell, Pro Se Petitioner.
Petitioner Mark R. Farewell, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a
pleading that he styled as a “NOTICE OF APPEAL” from an order issued on
September 30, 2014, by the Circuit Court for the City of Charlottesville. The
challenged order denied Farewell’s motion for a copy of the audio transcript of his
criminal trial, CR11-343, which he believes necessary to authenticate the trial
record. Farewell asks this court to order the circuit court to provide the requested
audio transcript. I conclude that Farewell’s petition must be summarily dismissed.
Federal district courts do not have jurisdiction to review the judgments of
state courts on appeal. Plyler v. Moore, 129 F.3d 728, 731 (4th Cir. 1997).
Jurisdiction for appellate review of state court judgments lies exclusively with

superior state courts and, ultimately, with the United States Supreme Court. Id.; *
28 U.S.C. § 1257. Because this court cannot address Farewell’s submission as an
appeal from the circuit court’s order, and based on the nature of the relief sought,
the court construed and docketed the submission as a Petition for a Writ of
Mandamus.
As such, Farewell’s petition must be denied, however. Mandamus relief is a
drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances not present
here. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Mandamus
may not be used as a substitute for appeal, In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d
351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007), which Farewell has not yet attempted. Most importantly,
this court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state
officials, such as a state court judge. Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg
Cnty., 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969).
A separate Final Order will be entered herewith.
DATED: November 14, 2014
/s/ James P. Jones
United States District Judge

*

But see Plyler, 129 F.3d at 732 (recognizing lower federal courts’ jurisdiction to
review final judgments of state courts in federal habeas corpus proceedings under 28
U.S.C. § 2254). Farewell does not state any ground on which he believes his current
confinement is in violation of the Constitution or indicate that he has exhausted available
state court remedies, such as an appeal or habeas proceedings. Therefore, I will not
construe his current submission as a § 2254 petition.
-2-