Case Name: In re Carlos Eugene KIPP, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-06-03
Citations: 36 F. App'x 102
Docket Number: No. 02-6340
Parties: In re Carlos Eugene KIPP, Petitioner.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 36
Pages: 102–102

Head Matter:
In re Carlos Eugene KIPP, Petitioner.
No. 02-6340.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 7, 2002.
Decided June 3, 2002.
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Carlos Eugene Kipp has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to have this court "to [ejompel the other Court to [r]ule" on his claims alleging that his sentences were improperly calculated consecutively instead of concurrently. It is not clear whether "the other Court" to which Kipp's petition refers is a state court in West Virginia or the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary situations. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987).
To the extent Kipp asks this court to compel a state court to rule, we lack authority to entertain Kipp's request. Federal courts have no general power to compel action by state officials or non-federal employees. Davis v. Lansing, 851 F.2d 72, 74 (2nd Cir.1988); Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir.1969).
If Kipp is complaining of delay by a federal district court, the issue is properly renewable on mandamus. However, any such claim fails on its merits as Kipp has not demonstrated delay in the federal courts. The district court acted on Kipp's federal case recently, dismissing Kipp's claims on April 1, 2002. Therefore, we deny Kipp's petition for a writ of mandamus and grant Kipp leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED.