Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-01874/USCOURTS-ca4-19-01874-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Lee Smith
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1874

In re: DAVID L. SMITH

 Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:19-hc-02207-FL)

Submitted: November 27, 2019 Decided: January 13, 2020

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Lee Smith, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-1874 Doc: 15 Filed: 01/13/2020 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

David Lee Smith petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the 

district court to invalidate his state conviction or reduce his state sentence and direct the 

state custodian 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 Murphy-Brown, LLC, 

907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018).

Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 

503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). 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, we deny the petition and 

supplemental petition for writ of mandamus. We further deny Smith’s motion to amend 

his habeas corpus petition. 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.

Based on the numerous meritless and repetitive motions and appeals that Smith has 

filed in this court, we previously warned Smith that filing further frivolous filings could 

result in the court ordering Smith to show cause why he should not be sanctioned. See 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-1874 Doc: 15 Filed: 01/13/2020 Pg: 2 of 3
3

Smith v. North Carolina, No. 19-6453 (4th Cir. July 24, 2019) (unpublished order); Smith 

v. North Carolina, No. 19-6459 (4th Cir. July 24, 2019) (unpublished order); In re Smith, 

No. 19-1496 (4th Cir. Aug. 21, 2019) (unpublished order); Smith v. Jackson, No. 03-6044 

(4th Cir. Aug. 19 & Nov. 6, 2019) (unpublished orders). Smith has not heeded this 

warning. Upon review of Smith’s current petition, we order Smith to show cause why this 

court should not impose a prefiling injunction or other sanctions, including monetary 

sanctions, against him. We direct Smith to file his response to this order to show cause 

no later than 21 days after the date of this opinion.

PETITION DENIED

USCA4 Appeal: 19-1874 Doc: 15 Filed: 01/13/2020 Pg: 3 of 3