Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-02069/USCOURTS-ca4-16-02069-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Lee Smith
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2069

In re: DAVID LEE SMITH,

 Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

(5:16-ct-03229-BO)

Submitted: December 15, 2016 Decided: December 19, 2016

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, 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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 16-2069 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/19/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

David Lee Smith petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an 

order directing the district court to enter an order directing a 

North Carolina 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. In re 

Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 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. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 

(1983).

The relief sought by Smith 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 

Appeal: 16-2069 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/19/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

Appeal: 16-2069 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/19/2016 Pg: 3 of 3