Case ID: f-appx_654/html/0620-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

IN RE: Curtis Louis SANGSTER, Petitioner.
    No. 16-1216
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 11, 2016
    Decided: July 13, 2016
    Curtis Louis Sangster, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Curtis Louis Sangster petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the Wake County Superior Court to reduce the $1.1 million bond imposed following Sangster’s August 2014 arrest. We conclude that Sangster 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, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (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). Federal courts have no general power to compel action by state courts. Davis v. Lansing, 851 F.2d 72, 74 (2d Cir. 1988); Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg Cty., 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969).

The relief sought by Sangster is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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