Case Name: In re Greg GIVENS; Dennis A. Givens, Petitioners
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-11-07
Citations: 487 F. App'x 116
Docket Number: No. 12-1845
Parties: In re Greg GIVENS; Dennis A. Givens, Petitioners.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 487
Pages: 116–117

Head Matter:
In re Greg GIVENS; Dennis A. Givens, Petitioners.
No. 12-1845.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 2, 2012.
Decided: Nov. 7, 2012.
Greg Givens, Dennis A. Givens, Petitioners Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Petitioners petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order requiring West Virginia judges and prosecutors to investigate and prosecute crimes committed against petitioners, to permit petitioners to bring pro se charges, and to release documents. We conclude that Petitioners are 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 185, 138 (4th Cir.1988). 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), and does not have jurisdiction to review final state court orders, Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983).
Thus, the relief sought by Petitioners 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED.