Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-02323/USCOURTS-ca4-16-02323-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Lee Smith
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2323

In Re: DAVID LEE SMITH,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. 

(5:15-hc-02128-D)

Submitted: February 27, 2017 Decided: March 1, 2017

Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, 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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 16-2323 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/01/2017 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

David Lee Smith petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an 

order prohibiting the district court from dismissing Smith’s 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion filed in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

(2012) proceeding and directing the court to reduce Smith’s 

state sentence. Smith also seeks an order directing a state 

corrections 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).

Appeal: 16-2323 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/01/2017 Pg: 2 of 3
3

The relief sought by Smith is not available by way of 

mandamus. Accordingly, we deny all pending petitions and 

motions, including the mandamus petition and supplemental 

petition and Smith’s motions for release, release pending 

appeal, and for an en banc determination. 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: 16-2323 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/01/2017 Pg: 3 of 3