Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-02371/USCOURTS-ca4-16-02371-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Lee Smith
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED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 Decided: March 16, 2017

Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 1 of 2
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. 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

Appeal: 16-2371 Doc: 5 Filed: 03/16/2017 Pg: 2 of 2