Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02222/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02222-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Lee Smith
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2222

In re: DAVID LEE SMITH,

 Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(No. 5:15-ct-03172-FL)

Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 23, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, 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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 15-2222 Doc: 7 Filed: 11/23/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

David Smith, a North Carolina inmate, petitions for a writ 

of mandamus directing the district court to construe his 

previously adjudicated 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as a 28 

U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition and directing the Governor of 

North Carolina to commute his sentence to time served. 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 the petition for writ of mandamus and all 

Smith’s pending motions, including motions for release pending 

appeal and for summary disposition. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

Appeal: 15-2222 Doc: 7 Filed: 11/23/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

Appeal: 15-2222 Doc: 7 Filed: 11/23/2015 Pg: 3 of 3