Case Name: In re Robert E. YOUNG, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-04-22
Citations: 518 F. App'x 221
Docket Number: No. 13-1256
Parties: In re Robert E. YOUNG, Petitioner.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 518
Pages: 221–221

Head Matter:
In re Robert E. YOUNG, Petitioner.
No. 13-1256.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 18, 2013.
Decided: April 22, 2013.
Robert E. Young, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert E. Young petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling state officials to deposit a sum of money into his prison trust account. We conclude that Young is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States 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 Young is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, 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.