Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01619/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01619-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Lee Smith
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1619

In re: DAVID LEE SMITH,

 Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(No. 5:15-hc-02128-D)

Submitted: September 13, 2016 Decided: September 16, 2016

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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 16-1619 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/16/2016 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 

resentencing him on his state sentence to time served, directing 

the United States Attorney to file a motion, and for his warden 

to immediately 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). To 

the extent Smith seeks an order directing state officials to 

act, 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: 16-1619 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/16/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

The relief sought by Smith is not available by way of 

mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of 

mandamus and supplemental petitions. We grant permission to 

proceed in forma pauperis and deny Smith’s motion for bail. 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: 16-1619 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/16/2016 Pg: 3 of 3