Case Name: In re Richard CHEEKS, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-10-31
Citations: 49 F. App'x 472
Docket Number: No. 02-7113
Parties: In re Richard CHEEKS, Petitioner.
Judges: Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 49
Pages: 472–473

Head Matter:
In re Richard CHEEKS, Petitioner.
No. 02-7113.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 24, 2002.
Decided Oct. 31, 2002.
Richard Cheeks, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Richard Cheeks petitions for a writ of mandamus. He seeks an order preventing the state court from considering his state habeas petition and preventing the state prosecutor from further participation in his case.
Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. 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). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. See In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.1979). This court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials, see Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir.1969), and does not have jurisdiction to review state court orders, see District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983).
The relief sought by Cheeks is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. 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 DENIED.