Case Name: In re Haiber V. MONTEHERMOSO, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-25
Citations: 530 F. App'x 274
Docket Number: No. 13-1330
Parties: In re Haiber V. MONTEHERMOSO, Petitioner.
Judges: Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 530
Pages: 274–274

Head Matter:
In re Haiber V. MONTEHERMOSO, Petitioner.
No. 13-1330.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 20, 2013.
Decided: June 25, 2013.
Haiber V. Montehermoso, Petitioner pro se.
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Haiber V. Montehermoso petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing a North Carolina court to respond to his motion to grant certiorari that he allegedly filed in November 2012. We conclude that Montehermoso 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, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (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). Moreover, this court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials. Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg Cnty., 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir.1969).
The relief sought by Montehermoso 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. 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.